
Class 

Book 

Copyright^ 



•Mfr% 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSfT. 



THE QUESTION 
BEFORE CONGRESS 



A CONSIDERATION OF THE DEBATES 

AND FINAL ACTION BY CONGRESS 

UPON VARIOUS PHASES OF 

THE RACE QUESTION IN 

THE UNITED STATES 



By GEO. W. MITCHELL 



THE A. M. E. BOOK CONCERN 
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 









Copyright, 1918 

By GEORGE W. MITCHELL 

Philadelphia, Pa. 



506514 



Contents 



CHAPTER I. — Attitude of Leading Statesmen on Slavery Ques- 
tion — Slavery in Constitution to Satisfy South Carolina and 
Georgia — Slave Trade Stimulated 17 

CHAPTER II. — Organization of the Territory of Arkansas and 
the Attempt to Exclude Slavery — The Missouri Struggle — 
Secession Threatened — Gen. Talmage's Defiance 24 

CHAPTER III. — President Monroe and His Cabinet on Missouri 
Compromise — Slaves as Personal Property — Indians Succor 
Escaping Slaves — The Exiles of Florida — Battle of Blout's 
Fort — First Seminole War — Ejectment of Indians from 
Georgia — Second Seminole 'War— Attack Upon Major Dade., 32 

CHAPTER IV. (1835-45)— The Twenty-fourth Congress— Anti- 
Slavery Literature Excluded from Mails — Right of Petition 
Attacked ; Defended by John Quincy Adams — Constitution of 
Arkansas Prohibiting Emancipation — Anti-Slavery Men Leave 
South — Agitation in North Intensified — Effect of Murder of 
Lovejoy — The Jackson Administration — Accession of Van 
Buren — The Twenty-fifth Congress — Secession of Represen- 
tatives from Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia — Calhoun 
Binds Congress to Support of Slavery — Giddings Enters 
Congress — The Twenty-sixth Congress Has Four Anti- 
Slavery Men — Election of Harrison as President — Abroga- 
tion of the "Gag Rule" 39 

CHAPTER V. (1845-48)— The Twenty-ninth Congress— Consti- 
tution of Florida — Mexican War — Wilmot Proviso — The Thir- 
tieth Congress — Hale, First Anti-Slavery Senator — Palfrey 
Enters House — Death of John Quincy Adams 54 

CHAPTER VI. (1848)— Formation of Free Soil Party— Beginning 
of End of Whig Party— Presidential Candidates of '48— Sec- 
tionalization of Political Parties — Election of Taylor 61 

CHAPTER VII. (1848-50)— The Thirtieth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion — The Gott Resolution for Abolition of Slavery in District 
of Columbia — Slavery Excluded from California and New 
Mexico — South Carolina Hints at Secession and Civil War — 
The Thirty-first Congress— Fugitive Slave Act — Protest of 
South $5 

[3] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER VIII (1850-56)— Kansas-Nebraska Troubles— Repeal 
of Missouri Compromise — Sumner in Senate — Douglas' Pop- 
ular Sovereignty — Sumner Assaulted by Brooks 72 

CHAPTER IX. (1856-61)— Organization of Republican Party- 
Nomination of Fremont and Dayton— Exciting Campaign — 
Election of Buchanan — Candidates, Platforms and Conven- 
tions of 1860 — Dred Scott Decision — John Brown's Raid — 
Preparation for Rebellion in Anticipation of Lincoln's Elec- 
tion — Northern Newspapers Encourage South to Rebel — 
Speakership Contest — Republicans Hedge — Jeff Davis Sets 
Forth Position of South — Revival of Foreign Slave Trade .. 79 

CHAPTER X (1861)— First Republican House of Representatives 
— Members Confused and Excited — Inauguration of Lincoln 
— Opposes Interference With Slavery — Sketch of Lincoln's 
Public Career — Not an Abolitionist — Secession and Beginning 
of Civil War 92 

CHAPTER XL— Early Conduct of War— Union Army Catching 
Slaves — Gen. Butler's Early Start at Slave Catching and 
Repentance — Administration Opposed to Freeing Slaves — 
Gen. Fremont Relieved of Command — Gen. Hunter in South 
Carolina — Administration Begins to Recede — Opposition to 
Negro Soldiers — Draft Riots — Heroic Treatment of Rebel- 
lion Begins — Confiscation Act — Lincoln Offers Pay for Slaves 
— Efforts to Evade Emancipation in District of Columbia — 
Clamor for General Emancipation — Greeley's Letter and 
Lincoln's Reply — Preliminary Proclamation 99 

CHAPTER XII— Lincoln Again Offers to Pay for Slaves— Res- 
olution in Congress Demanding Unconditional Emancipation 
— President Doubts Authority and Hesitates to Issue Procla- 
mation 112 

CHAPTER XIIL— Edict of Emancipation— Thirteenth Amend- 
ment — Civil Rights in District of Columbia — Penniless Freed- 
men — Freedmen's Bureau — Death of Lincoln 115 

CHAPTER XIV.— Colored Soldiers' Status; Discrimination 
Against — Massachusetts Colored Troops Refuse Pay — Officer 
Littlefield's Report — Draft Act — Commission to Pay Loyal 
Masters 120 

CHAPTER XV.— Just After the War— Reconstruction— Republi- 
cans Divided into Conservatives and Radicals — Probable 
Attitude of Lincoln — The Sumner Plan — Hints at Extension 
of Suffrage — Black Codes — President Johnson at Odds With 
Congress — Growth of Radicalism — Suffrage in District of 
Columbia — Power of Freedmen's Bureau Extended — Negroes 
in Possession of Land UndeT Order of General Sherman 125 

[4] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XVI.— Necessity for Clothing Freemen with Citizen- 
ship — Fourteenth Amendment — First Civil Rights Measure — 
Sumner's Radicalism — Stewart's Proposition — President John- 
son's Plan — Commission to Pay So-Called Loyal Masters . . . 135 

CHAPTER XVII.— Ku Klux Outrages— Re-enslavement of Freed- 
men Under Black Codes — Discrimination of Courts — Col- 
orado Constitution — Admission of Tennessee — Admission of 
Nebraska 147 

CHAPTER XVIII.— Destitution Among Negroes Who Followed 
Army to Washington — Bill for Relief — Founding of Hillsdale, 
D. C. — Property and Funds in Hands of Freedmen's Bureau 
— Stevens' Proposition to Give Freedmen Land, Forty Acres 
to Each Family — President Johnson Arraigned Congress — 
Status of Seceded States in Elections of 1868 — Platforms and 
Candidates — Election of Grant — Fifteenth Amendment — 
Sumner's Substitute for Fifteenth Amendment — Sumner At- 
tacked by Colleagues 155 

CHAPTER XIX.— Negroes in Politics— Election Riots— Admis- 
sion of Alabama and Arkansas — Omnibus Bill — Outrages of 
Ku Klux Investigated — Fifteenth Amendment to be Adopted 
Before States Admitted — Virginia Bill — Admission of Mis- 
sissippi — Revels, First Negro Senator 170 

CHAPTER XX. — Colored Men Elected to Georgia Legislature 
Expelled — Ratification of Fifteenth Amendment — Admission 
of Georgia 180 

CHAPTER XXL— The Grant-Sumner Quarrel Over Annexation 
of San Domingo — Senator Thurman Defends Sumner — Sum- 
ner Victorious but Colleagues Seek to Humiliate Him 185 

CHAPTER XXII. — Outrages in South and Legislation for Sup- 
pression — Sumner's Civil Rights Bill — Ku Klux Investigation 
Reported — Force Bill — Suppression of Ku Klux 189 

CHAPTER XXIII. — General Amnesty — Sumner's Civil Rights 

Bill Defeated— Death of Sumner— Civil Rights Bill Passed .. 196 

CHAPTER XXIV— Election of Hayes— Removal of Troops from 

South — End of the Carpet-Bagger 202 

CHAPTER XXV.— Education for Colored People— Ante-Bellum 
Teachers and Promoters — Beginning of Higher Education — 
Work of Freedmen's Bureau Under Howard — Free Public 
Schools — State Policy — Disfranchisement of Negroes — Cur- 
tailment of School Privileges — Discrimination Countenanced 
by Courts — The End 207 



[5] 



CONTENTS 
Contents of Appendixes 

A — Lincoln's Amnesty Proclamation of 1863 — Lincoln's Procla- 
mation of July 8, 1864, Rejecting Congressional Plan of 
Reconstruction— Protest of Senator Wade and Others 
Against Action of President Lincoln 219 

B — Interesting Decisions of U. S. Supreme Court, with Author's 
Comment in Notes, Prigg vs. Penna. ; Dred Scott; On Four- 
teenth Amendment; Civil Rights, etc.; On Fifteenth Amend- 
ment 229 

C— State Court Decisions, in Relation to Miscegenation, Railway 

Traveling, Public Schools, etc 236 



|6| 



Foreword 



It is difficult for one to write an unbiased history of the 
events in which he himself took part. And the cold, unvarn- 
ished truth, whether told by the historian or otherwise, is 
seldom popular. Most popular histories, therefore, are writ- 
ten, not to record the truth as it is found, but rather to boost 
or to disparage the memory of some party or cause. Being 
desirous of learning the truth concerning the events of which 
this volume treats, and finding that the historians differed 
widely among themselves in many particular cases, the 
author was led to examine the original records of Congress 
page by page. A few of the notes taken in connection with 
this reading have been put in the shape of the following pages 
and offered as a contribution to the literature on this particu- 
lar subject to any who may be interested in knowing the 
whole truth as we found it. "Nothing to extenuate, and set 
down naught in malice." 

G. W. M. 



|7| 



Introduction 



The world has always had a so-called race question, which 
is but another name for the struggle on the part of one mass, 
class or individual for mastery over another, or the attempt 
to adjust relations to their mutual advantage while striving 
to achieve group ideals. The history of the world is but the 
story of this struggle which is hoary with age, yet always 
new, because the old oppressor of to-day becomes the latest 
victim of to-morrow. Perhaps it is putting it a little strongly 
to speak of oppressor and oppressed; it might be fairer to 
say that the never-ending battle is between those in power 
and those seeking to dislodge them ; and, after all, the man 
•on top occupies the more precarious position for the reason 
that his sleepless antagonist beneath will surely get the upper 
hand some day, as there is no way for him to move but up- 
ward ; and move he must or be ground to pieces and disap- 
pear, which is itself movement. All the great nations have 
what we call a race problem due to the presence of so-called 
foreign elements in their midst. England has its Irishmen; 
France, its Jews ; Germany, its many branches of broken 
races; Russia, its Poles and Jews. The statute books are 
filled with laws expressive of the aims of one element to 
maintain first place and of another to resist encroachments 
upon what it regards as its rights. Each side has its cham- 
pions in legislative halls or upon the hustings and the record 
of their combats constitutes the history of the times. For, 
however crude the age or however barbarous and strong the 
master class, the oppressed have never been without a cham- 
pion. Slavery is universally regarded as the lowest position 
a man can occupy in human society. Three hundred years 
ago, this institution in the eyes of many in possession of 
power, did not seem monstrous nor even altogether unkind. 

[9] 



INTRODUCTION 

The desire to live is common and overwhelming. Ease and 
comfort seem to hold out the alluring promise of long life, 
and philosophical or religious sentiment has never been suf- 
ficiently universal or strong enough to prevent men from 
seeking the good things of life at any cost. Those who con- 
federate in this search can see no wrong in what they may 
do to others provided the desired end is accomplished. The 
pious New Englanders were wont to thank God that they 
were able to save some "Negro and Indian heathens from the 
devyl by making slaves of them." That these were more or 
less genuine efforts at benevolent assimilation in the first in- 
stance, in view of the privileges and immunities extended to 
those who were baptized, may be admitted. Nevertheless, as 
we now look back, we regard these notions as crude and en- 
tirely out of harmony with our modern views of Christianity. 
But they were a Bible-reading people — these New England- 
ers — and doubtless believed that they had cornered the very 
heathen which the Bible speaks of as being "given as their 
possession." With such texts upon their lips in connection 
with the scarcity of labor, their relish for benevolent assimi- 
lation was kept sharp. The Indians absolutely refused to 
enter into the scheme and took to the woods ; and the bap- 
tized Negro was far from being happy. This, however, made 
but little difference, as it was regarded as mere heathen in- 
gratitude. Then again, these masters themselves had been 
accustomed to tyranny. Many of them were only now fleeing 
from a condition in Europe bordering on slavery. They had 
been used to seeing the poor and weak abused by the power- 
ful. With scant supplies, they had just pitched their tent in 
this trackless forest. Force and strength of arms were the 
only capital that had any real value. Under such conditions 
the social pet is the giant who is able to defend his hut 
against all comers. The ethics of the school-man become 
ridiculous. 

The Puritan panting for religious liberty, the pioneer 
thirsting for political freedom, the adventurer in search of 
gold, were all affected by the hard conditions by which they 
found themselves surrounded — conditions that made help in 

[10] 



INTRODUCTION 

the shape of stout laborers a necessity. When the Huguenot 
arrived, boiling over with religious fervor, and the passen- 
gers from the Mayflower dropped on their knees to return 
thanks to God for having enabled them to reach the land 
where they might give full expression to their ideal life of 
piety and devotion, they little thought that in Old New Eng- 
land Negro babies would be so eagerly sought for as slaves 
that they would be sold by the pound. The political adven- 
turer, too, saw many of his dreams of greatness fade as he 
found himself practically confined to territory within the 
range of his rifle notwithstanding the number of acres de- 
scribed as his in the king's Letters Patent. The vast expanse 
of unopen country and forests filled with hostile Indians and 
the utter lack of facilities for inter-colonial communication, 
tended to define and limit the bounds of the several settle- 
ments almost as completely as though they were Continents 
separated by wastes of water. Neither common blood nor 
identity of interests could accomplish the destruction of these 
barriers before localism had secured a long start on confedera- 
tion, to say nothing of nationalization. Each settlement had 
its own regulations, and troubles, too, without the least ref- 
erence to the other. So it happened that the Puritans of New 
England, the Cavaliers of Virginia and the Dutch of New 
York, had but slight connections with each other. All began 
to develop under a sort of look-out-for-yourself policy ; all 
anxiously purchased tramps, expelled from England, and 
exiled felons for terms varying from four to seven years, 
under such arrangements as could be made with the skippers. 
They even bought victims kidnapped from European ports, 
for kidnappers had been getting white men long before Ne- 
groes had been thought of in this connection. 1 

It is one of the most curious paradoxes of history that hu- 
man slavery of the meanest and most loathsome type should 
have developed at a time when there was nothing discussed 
so much as the Bible, nothing professed more blatantly than 
Christianity and theologians had a monopoly on the learning 



1. Thwait's Epochs in Amer. Hist., page 74. Salmon's Domestic Service, 
page 22. 



INTRODUCTION 

of the age. Europe had just begun to realize that her people 
were enslaved by a Church whose priests were enslaved by 
their own bigotry while the whole population was enmeshed 
in the embraces of a terrifying religious superstition that 
terrified all who embraced it. There was a seething in the 
religious world. Men began to make laws to restrain the 
rapacity of the Church and were hesitating about striking at 
the State which they found involved. These troubles were 
beginning to be acute, especially in England, where kings 
were destined to be dethroned on account of it and one at 
least was to lose his head. This strife impoverished many 
people who not only sought peace and safety in flight to 
America but here also hoped to recuperate their broken for- 
tunes. The English rulers were glad enough to get rid of 
many of these agitators who were clamoring not only for re- 
ligious liberty but for the equally if not more important 
rights of civil liberty, by granting them land in America. But 
after all, land is of but little use without labor and these 
broken English gentlemen had never worked with their own 
hands and the number of stragglers whom they, with the as- 
sistance of skippers, could kidnap about the docks of Lon- 
don, was quite inadequate. The mother country naturally en- 
couraged these adventurers in every manner calculated to 
make them come here and to remain, and if these conditions 
caused the stealing of straggling Englishmen to be condoned, 
surely the members of an alien race could expect little sym- 
pathy and no help against the ravishers. Everybody could 
take all the men he could catch and hold them as long as he 
could. 

The common dangers of the American colonists naturally 
caused them to make their cause common. The planters were 
compelled to combine not only to hold their slaves and in- 
dentured servants, the euphemism applied to their white 
slaves, but more especially to protect themselves against the 
ugly tomahawks of the Indians. And while these colonists 
soon organized and settled themselves in communities, they 
brought with them from abroad all their religious prejudices 
and racial antipathies. Here was a settlement of Huguenots, 

[12] 



INTRODUCTION 

there one of Dutch, and still another dominated by Quakers 
as about old Philadelphia, while Cavaliers held forth further 
south. These communities developed and finally divided the 
territory among themselves and took the name of states. 
They built schools and churches to suit themselves likewise 
exploited their slaves and burnt their witches. Although 
commonly practiced over all the country, slavery in its in- 
fancy was recognized as a strictly local institution, and its 
regulation, propagation or abolition was altogether under the 
control of the local community. Thus it happened that many 
states just after the Revolution abolished slavery within their 
borders. 2 

The reaction from the struggle for independence and the 
manly part the Negroes had taken in the war as soldiers and 
fellow-workers with the other patriots, naturally attracted 
attention to their social and political status. All the leading 
men of the nation were, at that time or soon before, anti- 
slavery men and slave holding was never so unpopular in this 
country. Jefferson's opposition to slavery was well-known.* 
He both wrote and spoke against it and no man of his time 
did so much as he did to check its progress. Madison and 
Henry also opposed the institution. 4 But this opposition did 
not go so far as to demand immediate and unconditional 
emancipation, for the system had already taken too strong a 
hold under the fostering influence of England to permit men 
like the above to anticipate Garrison. 

The expatriation of the freed colored people was one of the 
cardinal principles of the early emancipationists ; indeed the 
American Colonization Society was but the crystalization of 
this idea into a working organization. The great moral force 



2. Massachusetts adopted a Constitution which the Supreme Court of the 
State declared incompatible with slavery, in 1780, March 2; Connecticut passed 
her Emancipation Act March 1, 1784; Rhode Island about the same year; New 
Hampshire in 1792; Vermont, 1793; New York, 1799; New Jersey, 1804. "The 
condition of Negroes in this Union is regulated by the municipal laws of the 
separate states; the Government of the United States can neither guarantee 
their liberty in a state where they would be recognized only as slaves nor 
control them where they would be recognized as free." — Extract from Instruc- 
tions of John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, to GaHatin and Rush, Pleni- 
potentiaries to England, November 2, 1818. Annals Fifteenth Congress. Ap- 
pendix, page 1577. 

3. Giddings' Hist. Rebellion, p. 11. 

4. Jefferson's Works, Vol. 1, pp. 23, 24, 135. Elliott's Debates, iii, p. 455, etc. 
Livermore's Essays — Attitude of the Founders, etc., ch. 1. 

[13] 



INTRODUCTION 

that constantly sustained the anti-slavery agitation, however, 
emanated from the religious sect known as Quakers or 
Friends. Year after year they discussed the institution and 
bitterly arraigned its supporters. The first anti-slavery so- 
ciety in the United States was founded in Philadelphia in 
1775, with Dr. Benjamin Franklin as President. 5 Dr. Frank- 
lin was succeeded by Dr. Benjamin Rush. Other societies 
were formed as follows : New York, 1785, with John Jay as 
President; Delaware, 1788; Maryland, 1789; Rhode Island 
and Connecticut, 1790; Virginia, 1791 ; New Jersey, 1792. All 
of these societies were represented in a general convention 
held at Philadelphia in 1784, from which date general con- 
ventions of the kind were kept up, somewhat indifferently at 
times to be sure, until about the time of the founding of the 
American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. 6 In May, 1776, the 
whole Quaker sect or Church adopted a resolution withdraw- 
ing fellowship from any of their number who refused to dis- 
countenance slavery after that date. As a consequence of this 
move, a large number of slaves in Virginia, North Carolina 
and other southern states was emancipated. Many of these, 
however, were re-enslaved by the southern planters before 
they could effect their escape from these parts. It is recorded 
that in three counties of North Carolina alone, one hundred 
and thirty-seven of such persons were sold into slavery again 
by the sheriff in a single day. 7 

When this state of affairs was brought to the attention of 
Congress, a bill was promptly reported "For the Protection 
of Free Negroes," etc., but it was never acted upon. 8 Indeed 
it was seriously claimed in North Carolina that no person had 
the right to emancipate his slaves and this contention was 
maintained until the Supreme Court of the State decided that 
such a right did exist 9 whereupon the legislature of the state 
passed a law authorizing any one to sell free Negroes into 



5. Nearly one hundred years before this time the Quakers of Philadelphia 
had begun to agitate the slavery question. Vide Pennypacker's "Early Dutch 
Settlers." 

6. Life of Garrison, by His Children, Vol. 1, p. 90. 

7. Giddings' Hist., etc., p. 23. 

8. Cf. Giddings, p. 22. 

9. Vide Stroud's Slave Laws. 

[14] 



INTRODUCTION 

slavery. And it was on the petition of the slave holders of 
North Carolina that Congress, in 1802, passed an exclusion 
act against the Negroes of Hayti. At this early period there 
was little anti-slavery literature of a permanent nature pub- 
lished in this country, unless the memorials and petitions of 
the Quakers and the anti-slavery societies be called perma- 
nent. 10 These petitions and memorials which were constantly 
poured into Congress soon began to be reflected in essays at 
legislation either to tighten or loosen the chains of the slave. 
In every slave-holding community, and this included about 
the whole country, there were statutes and ordinances dis- 
criminating against Indians and Negroes. Except for the pur- 
pose of illustration, however, it is not our intention to notice 
particularly these local regulations, which in themselves 
would fill many volumes, but to direct attention to the na- 
tional aspects of the race problem, so called, as it came up for 
consideration as THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS. 



10. Ralph Sanderson, a Quaker, published a pamphlet in 1729; Benjamin Lay, 
another Quaker, published one in 1737. Many works against slavery had been 
published abroad by eminent Negro scholars, but they dealt with the question 
in the West Indies and the books had little or no circulation in the United 
States. Eminent statesmen abroad had also published many works, cf. H. 
Gregoire. 



[15] 



The Question Before Congress 



CHAPTER I 



The Attitude of Leading Statesmen on the Question of Slavery — 
Slavery in the Constitution to Satisfy South Carolina and 
Georgia — Slave Trade Stimulated — Protest of Quakers to First 
Congress — Proposition to Declare Freedom of Slaves in the 
District of Columbia After July 4, 1805 — Suspension of Com- 
mercial Relations with Hayti — Slave Trade Attacked by John 
Randolph of Virginia. 

Slaves can be acquired only by the power of arms and can 
be held only by a continued exertion of the overwhelming 
force by which they were acquired. This means a state of per- 
petual warfare though the forces in resistance may be so 
feeble as to be practically negligible. But feeble as these 
opposing forces may be they are always sufficient to make 
timid ones fearful, brave ones apprehensive and to deprive all 
of the sense of absolute security. For although after genera- 
tions of breeding and training in subjugation, most of the 
pristine manhood and stamina of a people may be cuffed and 
cudgeled out, there is always the danger of atavism and the 
likelihood of meeting with a Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey 
at some lonely spot on our pathway, and worst of all, suppose 
we should meet a Toussaint L'Ouverture ! For it happened 
that just about the time the fathers of our Republic were 
laying the foundation of the government, this country, and 
the world at large, was filled with the echoing sound of the 
feet of Frenchmen fleeing from Hayti. Small wonder, then, 
that the statesmanship and philanthropy of this country at 
the time was against human slavery and that a strong effort 
was made by men like Jefferson to put an end to the slave 
trade and to arrange for the ultimate extirpation of the in- 
stitution from among us 1 and that a majority of the states 



1. Elliott's Debates, Vol. 4, p. 285. 

[17] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

as shown by their representatives sent to the convention was 
in favor of such propositions, and that the project failed only 
because a two-thirds vote was required to pass it. 2 The rep- 
resentatives of Georgia and South Carolina made the recog- 
nition of slavery a sine qua non of their states entering the 
Union. 3 Besides the political expediency of shelving an un- 
pleasant question, there were many things before this con- 
vention that were deemed of greater importance than this* 
matter of getting rid of the incubus of slavery. Then, too, 
it was thought that after we had settled down to the quiet 
enjoyment of our liberties under our Constitution, the nation 
would take up and settle the slavery question within a gen- 
eration at furthest. And although this proved to be a delu- 
sion, it was readily indulged and the question was allowed to 
be compromised. As an expedient resorted to in the forma- 
tion of the Union, it worked fairly well and accomplished its 
purpose ; but compromises never settle anything permanent- 
ly ; it was forced on the nation by South Carolina and Georgia, 
which states made it their price of entering the Union. 4 Hav- 
ing won this first contest under the Constitution, and being 
stimulated by the continued demand for slaves, the African 
slave trader soon became bolder in his activities, more shame- 
less in his methods and more callous of conscience. The 
method of kidnapping men by enticing them aboard ship under 
pretense of the desire to trade was soon given up as too slow, 
too sentimental ; too much dependent upon chance. To make 
sure of large, quick loads, the trader could not remain aboard 
ship and wait for his prey while in African ports. Native vil- 
lages were sought out and such inhabitants as might be fit 
for slaves were seized, while the rest were butchered or 
burned with their huts. These depredations soon became in- 
tolerable to all who were not participating in the immediate 
pecuniary benefits. An anti-slavery convention was called to 
meet at Philadelphia in 1794, when and where these outrages 
were taken up and discussed, and as a result, a memorial was 
sent to Congress demanding the abolition of the African 



2. Amer. Conflict I, p. 39. 

3. Madison's State Papers III, p. 145. 

4. Gidilings, p. 12. 



[18] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

slave trade. In response to this appeal and the public senti- 
ment it created, Congress passed an Act 5 making it unlawful 
for any of our citizens to engage in the foreign trade. The 
promptness with which these petitions were responded to is 
worthy of note in view of the changes that subsequently took 
place in this regard. This act was amended by acts passed 
May 10th, 1800; February 28th, 1803; and March 2d, 1807. 6 
The last-named statute was evidently enacted in anticipation 
of the expiration of the time limit on the foreign slave trade 
as originally fixed by the constitutional compromise which 
provided for the cessation of the trade after 1808. 

The southern planters, however, had definitely determined 
to hold their slaves at any cost ; and many doubtless thought 
that the union of the states would afford them additional se- 
curity; that under the Union slaves might be exploited for 
their local advantage while under the mutual protection 
clause of the Constitution, the power of the nation might be 
called upon to suppress anything in the nature of a serious 
servile uprising. After forcing the first compromise into the 
Constitution, in connection with these interests, they imme- 
diately set about the work of further safeguarding them. We 
had just entered upon the age of our agricultural expansion 
and the planters and farmers had and exerted a political in- 
fluence hardly less potent than that exerted by the great 
commercial and manufacturing corporations of a century 
later. The Congressional debates on questions in opposition 
to the slave-holding interests at this particular time were 
likely to be spiritless and tame and usually resulted in 
a victory for the planter-barons. Almost as soon as the na- 
tional government was formed, the southern planters secured 
the passage of a Fugitive Slave Act (Feb. 5, 1793). Prior to 
the date of this Act the existence of slavery was entirely de- 
pendent upon local regulations and under local police power 
which had and could exercise no extra territorial jurisdiction. 
While the relations of the slave states were always reciprocal 



5. March 22, 1794, Annals of Congress. 

6. Act of 1800 forbade citizens of the United States holding or owning 
property in any vessel engaged in the trade; 1803 forbade the landing of any 
vessel carrying slaves at any port of the United States where state laws pro- 
hibited slavery. 

[19] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

in matters connected with the management and control of 
slaves, a different atmosphere was experienced as the borders 
of the non-slave holding states were approached where the 
people were first indifferent, then cool and finally hostile. 
This anti-slavery attitude, however, was sustained by senti- 
ment alone ; it was not then so clearly seen how unfavorably 
the competition of slaves was affecting the social and political 
interests of our free yeomanry. When the Act of 1807 was 
before Congress, therefore, there was little or no aggressive 
opposition to the provision in the sixth section to the effect 
that "though it be illegal to import Negroes as slaves, they, 
on arrival, may be enslaved by the legislatures of the states 
where they may be landed." If this did not leave the door 
open for the continued importation of slaves, it certainly had 
the effect of leaving the latch string hanging invitingly out- 
side. Several of the states took immediate advantage of this 
clause and enacted laws to suit the case. 7 And when the 
Quakers of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland 
and Virginia petitioned the First Congress for the abolition 
of the slave trade, the petitioners were politely informed that 
"Congress had no power to act in the matter until after 
1808." 8 It will be remembered that it was not yet contended 
that Congress had no right to act at all which contention did 
not arise until many years later when it became the rock on 
which the ship of state stranded. But there was even at that 
time an undercurrent of doubt as to how far Congress might 
go in the direction of regulating slavery in the states. There 
was no question, however, about the right and duty of Con- 
gress to legislate concerning the national domain not yet 
erected into states. 9 In this connection a resolution was in- 
troduced in the House by Representative Sloan, of New Jer- 
sey, in the early part of 1805, declaring free all blacks, mu- 
lattoes, etc., born in the District of Columbia after July 4th 
of that year. This was lost by a vote of 77 to 31. Six Rep- 



7. StToud, p. 271. 

8. Article 1, Section 9, Constitution United States. 

9. Dred Scott decision declaring among other things unconstitutional the 
Act excluding slavery from a portion of Missouri, was the first effective at- 
tack upon the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress over the Territories. 



[20] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

resentatives from slave states voted for the measure — four 
from North Carolina, one from Maryland and one from Ken- 
tucky. 

When one reflects upon the vote on the Ordinance of July 
13th, 1787, which excluded slavery from the Northwest 
Territory, the vast section which was subsequently carved into 
six powerful states, and compares the figures with this vote in 
1805, relative to the District of Columbia, it will be seen how 
solidly and steadily slavery had advanced during those two 
decades. Besides having brought upon the nation no less than 
a half dozen wars, counting those with the Indians and 
Mexico, slavery kept our foreign relations always unsettled. 
Perhaps one of the meanest little acts in this connection of 
which we became guilty was the suspension of our commer- 
cial relations with Hayti in 1806 in order to discourage the 
people of that island in their struggle to maintain the liberty 
they had wrenched from France; and this act was passed 
after a lengthy and somewhat acrimonious debate in the 
House by a vote of 92 to 26. 10 The slavery question was pas- 
sive from 1807 to 1816, complications in connection with our 
foreign relations which ultimately led up to the second war 
with England having absorbed both popular and legislative 
attention. On March 1st, 1816, John Randolph, of Virginia, 
made a short but bitter speech against the slave trade and 
moved to instruct the Committee on the District of Columbia 
to report a bill abolishing the trade in the District. The mo- 
tion was carried and a bill was reported, but no further steps 
were ever taken. 11 But the cauldron had again begun to boil 
and bubble, and so when the Fifteenth Congress met there 
was an unusually large number of petitions for the abolition 
of the slave trade. All of these petitions were read but no 
further action was taken. One of the first things this Con- 
gress did, however, was to pass an act amending the Fugitive 



10. This law was repealed in 1860. England refused to acknowledge the in- 
dependence of Hayti, spurned her offers of commercial advantage, denied her 
West Indian colonies any intercourse with the island and even as late as 
1825 passed an act forbidding any foreign ship that had touched at San Do- 
mingo to enter any port of Jamaica. Vide Frazier's magazine, February 22, 
1879, p. 453; article by Francis W. Newman. 

11. Giddings, p. 42. 

[21] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Slave Law, and when an effort was made to insert a clause 
intended for the protection of free Negroes by securing them 
from arrest except under such circumstances as rendered 
other citizens liable to arrest, it was defeated. And so we 
come to the year 1819, when there was soon to occur that 
great test of strength on the part of both the slavery and 
anti-slavery forces in Congress over the admission of Mis- 
souri. 

In excluding slavery from the territories ceded by Virginia 
and the Carolinas under the Ordinance of 1787, the Ohio River 
was taken as the natural dividing line between slavery and 
freedom, the part north of that river was known as the 
"Northwest Territory" and in this slavery was abolished by 
the Ordinance ; on the south side of the river, known as the 
"Southwest Territory," including what afterwards formed 
some of the southern states, like Mississippi, slavery was re- 
tained under the Ordinance, but even here it was provided 
that no more slaves should be brought in from foreign ports, 
that is, from places outside the United States. Some of the 
inhabitants of the Northwest Territory complained bitterly 
on the account of the emancipation of their slaves without 
compensation and petitioned Congress for relief, but it was 
determined to be inexpedient to grant relief. John Randolph, 
of Virginia, in reporting for his committee against relief, 
pointed out the fact that the products of these lands did not 
require slave labor, besides the country was being settled by 
people from parts where slavery did not exist, and that it was 
the policy of the government to discourage slavery in every 
way. But sentiment changed rapidly after it was seen that 
no serious attempt was to be made to check the foreign slave 
trade after 1808, as provided by the Constitution. The fight 
over the conditions under which territories might be admitted 
to the Union began here and may be traced down through the 
days of Reconstruction. Time and again the question would 
be brought up in one way or another and in every instance 
the opinion prevailed that Congress was supreme in its power 
to govern and regulate. The slave power took the ground 
that the territories being common property, slave-holders 

[22] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

might enter them with their slaves without regard to any 
regulation that Congress might make. And while this was 
generally true, the fallacy of their argument, as so ably 
pointed out by Mr. Benton, 12 was in the fact that slaves were 
not generally regarded as property and were made so only 
by statute ; and because a man was held in slavery in Vir- 
ginia, where the law made him a slave, it did not necessarily 
follow that he would be a slave also in Massachusetts, as the 
Virginia slave-holder could not take his laws with him to 
Massachusetts. The fight was renewed over every new terri- 
tory acquired by us and upon the admission of every territory 
as a state. And while our leading statesmen and constitution- 
al lawyers recognized the question as one belonging ex- 
clusively to the realm of politics and therefore within the de- 
termination of Congress, listening to the repeated appeals of 
the slave power, the Supreme Court went beyond its jurisdic- 
tion and even beyond the question that was properly before 
it in the Dred Scott case, and undertook to nullify the Mis- 
souri Compromise. This caused the troubles in Kansas and 
ignited the fires of the Civil War. 



12. Examination of Dred Scott case by Thomas H. Benton. 



[23] 



CHAPTER II 



The Organization of the Territory of Arkansas and the Attempt to 
Exclude Slavery — The Missouri Struggle — Secession Threat- 
ened — General Talmage's Defiance. 

The movement for the admission of Missouri as a state 
into the Union in 1819 aroused the most serious and sig- 
nificant discussion of the slavery question that had occurred 
after 1787 up to that time. Several times between those dates, 
however, there occurred incidents that evidenced the deter- 
mination on the part of the South not only to hold on to 
slavery but to extend its influence, as was shown, for in- 
stance, in its attitude towards the Indians in that section. 
The year 1808 had come and passed, yet no one in Congress 
had called attention to the proposed discontinuance of the Af- 
rican slave trade according to the terms of the constitutional 
compromise. The Indians had been pushed further back upon 
their reservations to make more room for slave territory, yet 
no one had complained (but the Indians) ; the national au- 
thorities even endorsed this treatment of the aborigines. 
This complaisant attitude on the part of the government nat- 
urally encouraged the supporters of slavery and made them 
bolder in their fight. Indeed, the government, having either 
plainly condoned the breach of the constitutional compromise 
by the South or given active aid to the pro-slavery plans of 
that section, was now in no position to attack nor even to de- 
fend against any assault the pro-slavery party might make. 
But however it might have been with the politicians, there 
was still much anti-slavery feeling among the people. It was 
about this time that the South began to make the slavery 
question a political issue. The Democrats of the South be- 
gan to act together on this question and insisted that their 
northern brethren should either act with them or be forced 
out of the party. And as the South was in control of the 
party machinery, that section was able to dictate the party 

[24] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

policy and to withhold recognition from any who might be 
regarded as unsound on this vital issue. This alignment of 
the South and the withholding of party preferment from all 
persons even suspected of anti-slavery inclinations, soon de- 
veloped opposition in the North and East, principally on the 
part of individual statesmen. The great planters of the South 
were all pro-slavery and at this time their influence in politics 
was overwhelming. The influence of these planters, exercised 
through the Democratic party, was very similar to that of the 
great manufacturing and corporate interests of to-day in con- 
nection with the Republican party. 

Just before the Missouri question came up it was proposed 
to set apart Arkansas as a territory. Mr. Taylor, a Repre- 
sentative from New York, moved an amendment to the Ar- 
kansas bill to the effect that all persons born in the territory 
should be free at the age of twenty-five, and this amendment 
was adopted by a vote of 75 to 70. On this occasion ten Rep- 
resentatives from free states voted for slavery, while two 
from slave states voted against it, one of these being from 
North Carolina and one from Maryland. 1 The slave power 
having by this time waxed so strong, largely perhaps because 
it was practically let alone from 1807 to 1816, the vote on 
this question caused much surprise. The slave-holders had 
come to feel that they should have as many states as were 
controlled by the non-slave holding states in order that the 
legislative equilibrium might be maintained between the sec- 
tions. This amendment afforded the first opportunity to test 
the attitude of the rest of the country on this phase of the 
southerners' contention and tended to show that no such 
right would be conceded. But while the opponents of slavery 
could muster up sufficient strength to have the amendment 
adopted, they had no complete organization nor control over 
the machinery in either house of Congress. It was compara- 
tively easy, therefore, for the pro-slavery men to have the 
whole matter referred to a special committee which soon re- 
ported it back with the amendment stricken out. On the 
question of adopting this committee report, the vote stood 88 



1. Cf. Giddings, p. 52. 

125! 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

to 88, whereupon Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House, 
voted in the affirmative and the report was adopted without 
the amendment. An effort was made to revive the amend- 
ment in the Senate but utterly failed, the forces willing to 
stand for freedom in that body having already dwindled to 
insignificance. Mr. Clay, in after life, is said to have regretted 
his vote on this occasion ; but he was a politician and did not 
have the courage to offend the great planter barons. The 
vote on the Arkansas bill having shown that although the 
slave states were in the minority, they could expect no more 
territory at the hands of the nation without a struggle, a 
more aggressive policy was determined upon. The contest 
for the extension of slavery from now on was forced. It was 
clearly seen that the right to count two-thirds of the slaves 
for the purposes of representation would not long save the 
South from being swamped by other sections unless the insti- 
tution of slavery should be extended into other territory. 
How to extend slavery, then, became the great problem for 
the South. It was useless to look toward the North, where 
the benefits of universal freedom had been so well demon- 
strated by the prosperity of the great commercial and manu- 
facturing interests in which the whole population was par- 
ticipating, and where there was neither an oligarchy nor a 
submerged class. The people of the North had set their faces 
against slavery, and to emphasize their position, the legisla- 
tures of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and even 
Delaware, had passed resolutions suggesting to Congress 
the advisability of restricting slavery in Missouri and enjoin- 
ing their Representatives to vote and work to that end. The 
Pennsylvania Assembly was particularly severe in its ar- 
raignment of slavery. 2 When the Missouri bill came up, 
therefore, all hands in Congress were ready for the struggle. 
The sharp debates on the Arkansas measure in connection 
with the actions just referred to on the part of state legisla- 
tures only caused a sharper line-up on the Missouri question. 
And as soon as the Missouri bill was reported, Gen. James 
Talmage, representing New York, was ready with an amend- 



2. Pamphlet Laws of Pennsylvania, 1819, p. 198, etc. 

[26] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ment of the following tenor: "That the further introduction 
of slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment 
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall be prohibited, and that all children born within said 
state after the admission thereof into the Union shall be de- 
clared free at the age of twenty-five years." 3 After a three 
days' debate, this amendment was adopted by the House by 
a vote of 82 to 78. It was sent to the Senate, but that body 
struck out the amendment by a vote of 30 to 6. 4 When the 
House refused to concur in this change, Mr. Taylor, also from 
New York, moved the appointment of a special committee to 
report measures for the prohibition of slavery in the terri- 
tories west of the Mississippi, but in making up this commit- 
tee Mr. Clay appointed a majority of pro-slavery men, and 
after deliberating for some time, Mr. Taylor was compelled 
to report their inability to agree on any plan and the com- 
mittee was accordingly discharged. Being unable to reach 
the Missouri question through the means of this committee, 
it remained in statu quo. Soon after this time Maine applied 
for admission into the Union, and the well known fact that 
this was to be a free state added fuel to the flame already 
raging over the admission of Missouri. Threats of secession 
rang through the halls of Congress for the first time and 
were caught up and hurled back with eloquent emphasis. 
Webster's reply to Hayne a few years later, was a defense, 
but Talmage's reply to Scott, of Missouri, who had just de- 
livered himself of a tirade threatening the life of the Union 
in 1819, was a defiance. In closing his speech, General Tal- 
mage said: "If dissolution of the Union must take place, let 
it be so ! If civil war, which the gentlemen so much threaten 
must come, let it come ! My hold on life is probably as frail 
as that of any man who hears me, but while it lasts it shall 
be devoted to the service of my country and the freedom of 
mankind." 5 

The Maine bill was attached to the original Missouri bill 



3. Annals Second Session Fifteenth Congress. 

4. At this time there were twenty Senators from Free States. 

5. Annals, Feb. 16, 1819, p. 1203-6. 



[27] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

and passed by the Senate by a vote of 24 to 20. The anti- 
slavery amendment was again inserted when it reached the 
House by a vote of 94 to 86 and returned to the Senate, which 
body again struck out the amendment by a vote of 27 to 15. 
And thus the battle waged through the entire session without 
signs of weakening on either side. In the meantime, Mr. Clay, 
who was leading the pro-slavery forces in the House, moved 
the appointment of a special committee for the consideration 
of the matter. This committee was elected by the House, so 
important was the work cut out for it to do, and the thirteen 
members receiving the highest number of votes were to form 
it. Mr. Clay was elected first and was made chairman. To 
this committee were submitted many plans for settling the 
difficulty, and among these was one formulated by Senator 
Thomas, a rabidly pro-slavery man from Illinois, in the fol- 
lowing language : "That in all that territory ceded by France 
and known as the Louisiana Territory, which lies north of 36 
degrees and 30 minutes north latitude, except only such part 
thereof as is included within the limits of the state contem- 
plated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude other- 
wise than as punishment for crime, etc., shall be and is here- 
by prohibited." Following this was a short fugitive slave 
clause. The special committee thought well of this plan and 
it was accordingly reported through Mr. Clay, who became 
its champion. John Randolph, of Virginia, was a strong op- 
ponent of the bill, but Mr. Clay hastened it through the 
House and at once rushed it over to the Senate to defeat Mr. 
Randolph, who was preparing to move for a reconsideration 
of the vote by which it had been adopted. 6 When Randolph 
did get a chance to speak he made a most bitter attack not 
only upon this measure, but upon the whole North for its at- 
titude on the slavery question. It was on this occasion that 
he applied the term "dough faces" 7 to those northern mem- 
bers who voted for the measure. 

The Senate passed the Missouri bill February 17, 1820, and 



6. Cf. Gidding's, p. 65. 

7. This afterwards became a common term of derision that was applied to 
Northerners generally; if Randolph did not invent it, he certainly popularized 
it. 



[28] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

at the same time adopted a resolution enjoining the state at 
the first meeting of its legislature to pass a law forbidding 
free Negroes within its borders. This resolution, however, 
was defeated in the House. 

The covenants of this famous compromise were as follows: 
First, that the people of Maine should be allowed to form a 
state government ; second, that the people of Missouri should 
be allowed to form a state government restricting slavery to 
an extent ; third, that slavery be excluded from the remainder 
of the Louisiana Purchase. 

This struggle over the admission of Missouri marks the be- 
ginning of the end of slavery in the United States, although 
the advocates of the system seemed to have triumphed so 
gloriously on this occasion. Indeed it was the very progress 
of slavery during this period that brought it to such an early 
end. It was its aggressive spirit that kept the eyes of the 
world forever upon it, inviting attack from every side. The 
South, however, soon gave up further attempt to secure any 
of the other territories of the Union at that time and turned 
its attention to the acquisition of territory elsewhere which 
was followed by more disastrous results than ever, for in en- 
deavoring to carry out these designs the whole nation was 
involved in war with Mexico. The slave-holders felt that they 
needed Texas and virtually undertook to seize it from Mexico 
after a handful of Americans squatted on the land for a while 
and organized what they were pleased to call a revolt against 
the Mexican government. The cry was sent out that our citi- 
zens were being robbed and dispoiled by Mexicans, and while 
everybody knew that this was a mere fake, the slave-holders, 
whose agents and tools filled all the government offices and 
the army, had little trouble about getting the nation to take 
up their fight. War was declared and Texas was raped from 
Mexico. The territory pretended to start out as an inde- 
pendent state, it is true, but that was all in the game. Every- 
body, from Sam Houston down or better, up, knew how and 
for what purpose we got into trouble with our southern 
neighbors. The same ingenious statesmanship contemplated 
the acquisition of Cuba and perhaps the whole of the more im- 

[29] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

portant islands in the West Indies, but finding the powerful 
North and West so little inclined to help in the war on Mexi- 
co, they had to make themselves satisfied with treaties and 
Ostend Manifestoes until such a time as it was hoped the 
country would be sufficiently aroused by their propaganda to 
justify the attempt to go up against England and Spain, for 
while they had the politicians they knew the people were 
against them. 

A campaign of education was immediately inaugurated. 
The Missouri Compromise just adopted after a struggle mem- 
orable for its bitterness on the floor of Congress was now ap- 
pealed to the people by its enemies. It became the text for 
platform orators and pamphleteers and the subject to which 
editors daily referred. Demagogues reviled it ; politicians 
execrated it ; preachers anathematized it, while the common 
people of the South, mimicing their masters, sneered at it. It 
was really a big question and big with the progeny of evil, of 
dark days for the Union, of war, of death and destruction. It 
was the parting of the ways where a temporary expedient 
would no longer suffice for the adoption of a definite course. 
We had to take a direction leading to a more perfect union 
as a nation of slave-holders or one leading in the direction of 
a nation tending towards the freedom and equality of all its 
inhabitants, for all that the wisest statesmanship and the 
most inexorable force can produce is a tendency rather than 
a finality in the movement of a nation. At all events, then, 
we were about to take another step in the direction of form- 
ing the more perfect union of which we speak in the Preamble 
of our Constitution. Questions affecting our national defence 
had been raised and settled; likewise questions affecting our 
credit. Indeed, all the various departments of our govern- 
ment had been organized and set into operation with com- 
mendable smoothness. Perhaps no people, situated as we 
were, composed of different states whose inhabitants were 
complex, many of the original ones having been exiles from 
different parts of the globe with a difference in training, 
some impelled by greed for gain, others by religious senti- 
ment and all under the spell of a feeling of independence and 

[30] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

freedom from political restraint at least, could have accom- 
plished more or done better in a given time in the construc- 
tion of a nation than did the fathers of our Republic. Com- 
mon interests and common dangers tended to cement us dur- 
ing the Revolution. After this struggle it was but natural that 
communities that had developed into states under their own 
laws and customs which had hitherto gone unquestioned, 
should hesitate about giving up their autonomy. It was 
not strange, indeed, that South Carolina and Georgia should 
have had the courage to name their price for yielding up 
many of their cherished institutions to be paid before coming 
into the Union. All the states gave up much, it is true ; it is 
also true that much was reserved in the grant. And if the 
courts are still being appealed to daily to determine what the 
various states gave up and what they retained under their 
own jurisdiction, what, though lawful in a state, may be a 
national offense, whether one in Massachusetts may deport 
himself like a Georgian, how much more unsettled must these 
questions have been in 1820? As a rule states do not give up 
their autonomy without a struggle. The German Empire, 
like most other such modern combinations, was welded 
together by a force that won for Bismarck the name of the 
"Iron Chancellor." The states forming our Union generally 
quietly acquiesced, only some in the southern section demand- 
ed that they be allowed to hold their slaves — black slaves and 
people of an alien race. Thus it was agreed and thus the 
Union was formed, but to what extent they might hold their 
slaves outside of their own territory was quite another ques- 
tion, although there is a tacit agreement implied in the Or- 
dinance of 1787 that slavery should not be extended. The 
right of extension, however, was at once asserted by the 
South, while the North hedged. In 1857, Taney, more than a 
generation later, undertook to settle the debate by his Dred 
Scott Decision, but he only excited the contestants to blows 
— blows which, if they had been applied to Pinckney and his 
few followers in the Constitutional Convention, might have 
settled the controversy in four days without bloodshed, which 
now lasted for four years and drenched the country in blood 
before the trouble ended at Appomattox. 

[31] 



CHAPTER III 



President Monroe and His Cabinet on the Principles of the Missouri 
Compromise— Slaves as Personal Property— Indians Succor 
Escaping Slaves— The Exiles of Florida— Battle of "Blout's 
Fort"— The First Seminole War— The Ejectment of Indians 
From Georgia— Second Seminole War— Attack Upon Major 
Dade. 

The Missouri Compromise being the question of the hour, 
made so, as we have observed, by the very people who should 
have been most interested in having- it forgotten, President 
Monroe, soon after taking his seat, propounded to his Cabinet 
the following questions: First: "Has Congress power to 
prohibit slavery in the territories ; second: Is the Missouri 
Compromise constitutional." So far as is known, the Presi- 
dent was unbiased and sought the honest unbiased opinion of 
his advisers. He did not push for an answer and each mem- 
ber had time to study the questions and give a written reply 
and all answered both questions in the affirmative. 1 John 
C. Calhoun was perhaps the most distinguished member of 
this Cabinet, but it appears that he did not hesitate to reply 
in unison with his colleagues. It is true that at that particu- 
lar moment the great party leaders, especially in the North 
and West, were making a heroic effort to make the people 
believe that the slavery question had been settled and Clay 
was being lauded for the part he had taken in it, Mr. Cal- 
houn and the rest doubtless felt that it was safer for their 
personal popularity to appear to be in accord with this ebu- 
lition of sentiment, although it proved to be only momentary, 
rather than to be placed in a position where he might be 
charged with reflecting on a public idol through jealousy, for 
Mr. Clay was immensely popular at that time. Regardless 
of Cabinets and of Calhouns, however ; regardless of the shouts 
of the northern populace and the thunders of the press, the 
pro-slavery magnates sat in judgment on this instrument and 



1, Giddings, p. 65. 

[32] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

condemned it. Mighty Caesar spoke and the thunders of the 
northern dailies became a whimper and the great statesmen 
of the North began to apologize and excuse. A move was im- 
mediately made to have Congress declare slaves to be "prop- 
erty." If Congress should say they were "property" then con- 
sistent objection could not be made to such property being 
carried by the owner to any part of Missouri or elsewhere as 
might be found desirable. The question was raised in connec- 
tion with the claims of one D'Autreve for the loss of slaves 
in the battle of New Orleans in 1814. The debate in the House 
was long and exhaustive, extending over three weeks. The 
thoroughness of this debate and the care exercised to avoid 
giving an affirmative answer was doubtless due in part at 
least to the fact that an affirmative answer would have meant 
the immediate filing of numerous other claims for the loss 
of slaves and alleged slaves through the exigencies of the war 
of 1812 in which many black men participated, both with 
Jackson at New Orleans and with Perry on the Lakes. The 
House, however, by an overwhelming vote resolved that 
slaves "were not such property as could be paid for by the 
United States Government under the circumstances." Thus 
the question was left open, although on this particular oc- 
casion only 32 voted in the affirmative. Obviously an answer 
so uncertain, indefinite and vague could not be satisfactory. 
After repeated failures in Congress where the question had 
to be debated in the open by men who were responsible to 
their constituents, the slave-holders resorted to the United 
States Supreme Court for the relief which Congress denied 
them. This august body, after hearing or pretending to hear 
the case brought before them involving the question, solemn- 
ly declared slaves to be "personal property." Much less could 
hardly have been expected from this Court, immune from 
public attack and composed, as it was, of men appointed either 
directly or indirectly by the slave influence. Judges are none 
the less men and as such are susceptible to all the ordinary 
human influences. It was not strange, therefore, that 
men born and reared either slave-holders or among slave- 
holders, should see things from a slave-holder's point of view. 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Besides, if slaves were not property, what were they? They 
could be bought, sold, mortgaged or even given away. And 
yet if they were property, why did the Constitution recog- 
nize them as men to the extent of having them counted and 
used as a basis for representation? Why were men sitting in 
Congress as the avowed representatives of a slave population 
instead of the representatives of so many cattle or hogs? 
But this question was not before the Court ; if it had been, 
doubtless some answer would have been found which if not 
satisfactory to all would have been satisfactory at least to 
the political party to which a majority of the judges owed 
their appointment. For after all, law is but a set of rules and 
regulations prescribed by the majority which the rest of us 
must obey under penalty which the stronger may always in- 
flict upon the weaker with impunity. When a statute is pass- 
ed, it indicates what a majority of the people want and the 
judge who undertakes to construe it contrary to this majority 
sentiment will not only become unpopular but is likely to 
have his usefulness impaired; and there is no question about 
the fact that public sentiment at this time was pro-slavery. 
But even this decree of the Supreme Court could not keep 
this question from constantly recurring. During the Revolu- 
tionary War and the exciting times immediately following, 
the supervision over the southern slaves seems to have been 
particularly loose. This situation was perhaps due in part to 
the absence of the men engaged in the war, and partly to the 
ever present memories of San Domingo, and it was doubtless 
felt safer to exercise less restraint. At all events a great 
many slaves were allowed to escape from Georgia and the 
Carolinas, the most of them having taken refuge among the 
Creek Indians, then occupying a reservation adjoining 
Georgia ; others went even further and found shelter among 
the Seminoles in Florida which was then Spanish territory. 
The aggrieved slave-holders not only did not ask outside aid 
to apprehend the fugitives but did not even take steps in the 
direction of trying to secure these escapes for nearly a gen- 
eration and then they only asked and secured from Congress 
the right to go among the Indians to make the search. 

[34] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Congress entered into a treaty with the Creeks under which 
their territory could be visited by persons claiming these al- 
leged fugitives, but no one even thought of asking the gov- 
ernment to go further. It would be quite incorrect to think 
of these hunted persons as fugitive slaves for the reason that 
most of the original ones had died and the remainder, 
together with their children, had become so intermingled 
with the Indians as to make identification impossible. Those 
who joined the Seminoles especially became completely ab- 
sorbed by intermarriage with the natives. Almost the whole 
tribe became affected and changed to Indian-Negroes. Pur- 
suant to the terms of the treaty just referred to, and in strict 
recognition of the fact that slavery was a local affair, a party 
of young men from Georgia repaired to this Indian reserva- 
tion on what they facetiously called "a nigger hunt." As a 
hunting party they were most successful in finding their 
game, but unfortunately they found trouble with it, for the 
Negroes showed fight and did fight, and as a consequence of 
this fact, few, very few of those who went on the "hunt" re- 
turned home again to tell of the sport. 2 The fate of this 
expedition made a profound impression upon the minds of 
slave-holders. Toussaint L'Ouverture had just driven the 
French out of the West Indies and had done it without an 
ally and practically without arms other than those he cap- 
tured. And the French were known to be of the most valor- 
ous blood of Europe and well trained in military tactics and 
the use of arms ; and now these escaped slaves or their de- 
scendants were showing a fighting spirit that boded ill for the 
continuance of slavery without a strong arm to cope with it. 
Under the circumstances the self-sufficiency of states or state 
rights had to be thrown to the winds and the power of the 
whole nation resorted to for protection ; and all the machin- 
ery of the national government at the time being in the hands 
of the slave power, there was not the least difficulty in secur- 
ing national support. But as it was found to be no picnic or 
holiday trip for young Georgians to invade the Indian reser- 
vations in quest of alleged slaves, Gen. Andrew Jackson was 



2. Giddings' Exiles of Florida. 

[35] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

sent in 1816, with a strong detachment of Federal troops to 
try conclusions with these alleged fugitives. He found many 
of them in the northern part of Florida, some three hundred 
of them entrenched in "Blout's Fort." The gathering of these 
men in anything like a fort was a tactical error that proved 
most costly to the defenders. From the trackless forest, en- 
tangled swamps and everglades a guerilla warfare might 
have been effectively waged and sustained to the great dis- 
comfiture of slave-holders and their agents. For these Ne- 
groes had again become real children of the forest and knew 
every hedge and hog path, every bog and fen, every hollow 
tree and hiding place in that district of wild things and wilder 
men. The search after these alleged fugitives with gun and dog 
could not have been more aptly described than as a "hunt." 
The situation was viewed in a far different and more serious 
light, however, after the unmerciful disaster by which this 
last "hunting party" was overwhelmed. It became a question 
that loomed large in the eyes of the planters in the affected 
districts ; neighborhood hunting parties and even local militia 
could not be trusted to cope with it. Nothing short of a de- 
tachment of United States troops would be sufficient. Ac- 
cordingly, General Jackson was sent to crush these exiles 
with a part of the United States Army. General Jackson 
promptly blew up the fort and practically wiped out its de- 
fenders. 3 To be more exact, of the 333 persons found there, 
270 were killed, 60 wounded and 3 escaped. In this great mili- 
tary achievement General Jackson had the assistance of Gen- 
eral Gaines and Colonel Clinch, all of the United States Army. 
And so grateful was the nation for this splendid work and 
conspicuous exhibition of gallantry, Congress, twenty-two 
years later, voted General Jackson and his associates the sum 
of $5000. 4 Other Negroes who were in the vicinity of 
Blout's Fort receded further into Florida swamps where they 
were cordially received by the Indians. But this friendly re- 
ception on the part of the Indians was dearly paid for, as it 
was made the pretext for the first Seminole War. 



3. Giddings' Hist., p. 101 

4. Exiles of Florida, p. 42. 



36} 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Southern planters never had any good blood for the In- 
dians, any way, for they would not permit themselves to be 
enslaved, and not only this, they are said to have entertained 
no very serious scruples about making raids upon the stock 
of their white neighbors. And when we add to all of this the 
influence naturally exercised upon the minds of black slaves, 
it is not surprising that the Indians should have been regard- 
ed as a personal menace to the interests of the planters. A 
fugitive slave who might be able to reach the Indian Reser- 
vation was generally pretty safe, for both these Indians and 
their Maroon allies, could shoot and shoot straight from behind 
trees and shrubbery. Had it not been for these conditions a 
much longer period would doubtless have elapsed before the 
Cherokees would have been called upon to weep farewell to 
their Georgia, where their ancestors had for ages roamed and 
ranged along the shimmering waters of the Savannah. Per- 
haps they never would have been frocibly ejected had not the 
interest of slavery demanded it. And these are the same con- 
ditions that induced us to secure Florida from Spain in 1821. 

Long periods of peace and prosperity always result in op- 
pression of some sort and are followed naturally by a period 
of seething discontent. If peace and prosperity should con- 
tinue unbroken for a decade the people will find themselves 
beginning to break up into classes ; if the conditions prevail 
longer society will begin to develop into castes. The humane 
feeling and gratitude inspired by the successful termination 
of the Revolution by which our independence was won had 
become stagnant by 1820 and quite dead by 1828. As these 
feelings disappeared, the feeling of aristocracy and caste 
arose and waxed strong, especially in connection with our 
southern planters. Cotton became king and the planters, 
princes of the realm. There was little hope of political pre- 
ferment except for those who kow-towed to these grandees. 
Little or no attention was paid to any in public places but the 
southern gentleman who contemptuously referred to the 
people of other sections as "dough faces" or "mud sills." It 
was only natural, then, that the South should furnish the 
man to succeed John Quincy Adams as President ; natural it 

[37] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

was also, that this man should be of the type of Andrew Jack- 
son, though Jackson was the first man of his particular class 
ever to fill that high office, being a typical poor white man — 
coarse and uncultured. But he had shown his mettle at New 
Orleans and earned some fame and the gratitude of the na- 
tion ; he had also blown up "Blout's Fort," by which he earned 
more fame and the gratitude of the slave-holders. No better 
man could possibly have been selected for carrying out the 
program and designs of the southern planters in 1828. The 
Indians had to be immediately removed from their reserva- 
tions in Georgia and Florida ; anti-slavery literature had to be 
excluded from the mails and the demands of slavery yielded 
to without question or debate in Congress. There was need 
of a rough and ready man in the White House, and who could 
serve better than "Old Hickory?" What if the Indians should 
revolt at being ejected and involve us in a second Seminole 
War in 1835, the hero of Blout's Fort would be equal to the 
occasion. This second war was really commenced, however, 
by an attack by the Maroons, as these Indian-Negroes were 
called, upon Major Dade while he was moving a detachment 
of United States troops from Fort Brooke to Fort King, Fla., 
a distance of some one hundred and thirty miles. The route 
undertaken lay through a wilderness with which Major Dade 
was unfamiliar and the Maroons lay in wait, fell upon the un- 
suspecting brigade, slew the leader and his entire force. Thus 
sadly was the slaughter at "Blout's Fort" avenged, and thus 
slavery crossed another tributary of blood which flowed on 
to its ocean in 1861. 



[38] 



CHAPTER IV 



The Twenty-fourth Congress — Anti-Slavery Literature Excluded 
from the Mails — The Right of Petition Attacked — Defended by 
John Quincy Adams — The Constitution of Arkansas Prohibit- 
ing Emancipation — The Jackson Administration — Anti-Slavery 
Men Leave South — The Agitation in the North Intensified — 
Effect of the Murder of Lovejoy — The Accession of Van Buren 
— The Twenty-fifth Congress — Secession of Representatives 
from Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia — Calhoun Binds 
Congress to Support Slavery — Giddings Enters Congress — The 
Twenty-sixth Congress Has Four Anti-Slavery Men — The Elec- 
tion of Harrison as President — The Abrogation of the "Gag 
Rule." 

Great impetus was given to the agitation of the slavery 
question in this country in the early part of the decade be- 
tween 1830 and 1840, by the situation connected with such 
affairs in the English colonies. Lord Mansfield had long since 
decided the Somerset Case which held that slavery was in- 
compatible with life in England. After a lengthy and trying 
agitation by such men as Wilberforce, Clarkson, Sharpe and 
George Thompson, all slaves in the English colonies were 
freed by an Act of Parliament in about 1833. The result of 
this was to cause the agitation in the United States to assume 
a tone at once more hopeful and aggressive under the leader- 
ship of such men as William Lloyd Garrison. But the discus- 
sion here was, nevertheless, still in the stage that might be 
termed purely ethical and academic. No one had yet dared 
to call for a vote or to appeal to the ballot. The publication 
of fugitive and occasional disquisitions on the subject, now 
began to give place to a stream of literature that was more 
constant, more polemic in nature and more severe in criticism 
of the slavery system and its supporters. Benjamin Lundy 
had begun to publish his ''Genius of Universal Emancipation" 
at St. Clairsville, Ohio, in 1821, and, during the same year, 
moved to Steubenville, Tenn., where he continued his publi- 
cation until 1828, when he moved to Baltimore, where he was 
joined by Garrison. But even before Lundy started his paper, 

[39] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Elihu Embree, another Quaker, had begun the publication of 
his "Emancipator," at Jonesburough, Tenn., which is said to 
have been the first paper or periodical ever regularly pub- 
lished in this country with the sole aim and object of opposing 
slavery. 1 Garrison began his work as a publisher of anti- 
slavery literature in 1828 while editing the "Journal of the 
Times," a paper established for the purpose of advocating the 
election of John Ouincy Adams to the Presidency. "Walker's 
Appeal" made its appearance in 1829. Walker was a Negro, a 
barber by trade, who had gone to Boston from the South, 
where by industrious application, he had picked up a fair 
knowledge of reading and writing. His little pamphlet, of 
some 70 pages, was an essay on the cruelties of slavery and 
it created a sensation, not so much because of any particular 
literary merit, but because it was a forceful arraignment of 
slave-holders and was regarded as a remarkable thing for a 
Negro to accomplish. 2 In the hope of shutting off this flow 
of anti-slavery literature, upon the assembling of the Twenty- 
fourth Congress, President Jackson recommended the enact- 
ment of a law excluding such matter from the mails, on the 
grounds of its being "incendiary." To call these sharp thrusts 
from the pen of Garrison, the masterful polemics of men like 
Parker 3 and the scholarly effusions emanating from men 
like Channing, all aiming and intending to pillory slave- 
holders and to hold them up to the execration of mankind, 
"incendiary" could hardly be regarded as any great misappli- 
cation of the term or a wanton abuse of language. The press 
had already popularized the terms "dough faces" and "mud 
sills" as applied to the people of the North and West, and the 
same medium was now rapidly popularizing the term "dirty 
slave-holders" in connection with the designation of the 
southern gentry. It is not hard to see or to understand how 
these were mutually insulting to the people of these re- 
spective sections. Congress, therefore, did not hesitate to 
adopt President Jackson's recommendation for the passage 



1. Garrison, Vol. 1, p. 88. 

2. Williams* Hist., p. 553. 

3. Rev. Dr. Theodore Parker and Rev. Dr. William E. Channing, both noted 
pulpit orators, of Boston. 



[40] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

of a law against the circulation of anti-slavery literature. 4 
The efforts of Postmaster General Kendall to enforce this 
statute caused such a debauchery and demoralization of the 
Federal mail service as the country never witnessed before 
nor since. Mail matter addressed to persons suspected of being 
anti-slavery was held up and rifled, post offices were ran- 
sacked and all sorts of riotous excesses indulged in by hood- 
lums and zealots under the color of this law, in the pretended 
search for anti-slavery literature. Suspicion ran riot sharply 
reminding one of the situation in England in the days of the 
alleged Popish and Rye House Plots. To say that great in- 
dignation was felt by those disposed to resent this interfer- 
ence on the part of the government with their personal 
choice as to what they should be allowed to read, was to put 
it mildly. There was a howl of protest that gave the South 
a great deal of unfavorable advertising and it was soon made 
apparent that the statute was so impractical that attempts to 
enforce it would be futile and they were accordingly given 
up. By the time Mrs. Stowe began to publish her "Uncle 
Tom's Cabin," all efforts to exclude such matter from the 
mails had ceased. The fact that such a law could be passed, 
however, without even the most feeble opposition in Con- 
gress tends to show not only the great overwhelming in- 
fluence of slavery throughout the country at the time, but 
how recklessly that influence was exerted. 

Under Jackson, the slave power reached its zenith. The 
President led it ; Congress fed it ; the northern press flattered 
it, and the nation bowed to it. But this arrogance on the part 
of the slave power drew out and intensified the opposition. 
Petitions began to be poured into Congress daily demanding 
the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 
Congressmen were accustomed to receiving such petitions 
from Quakers, but these memorials were not from Quakers. 
It was seen that Congress would soon again be embroiled in 
another serious controversy over the slavery question, not- 
withstanding the Missouri Compromise, unless steps should 



4. Cf. Morse's Van Buren, p. 36; Benton's Thirty Years' Review, Vol. I, p. 

S7S. 



[41] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

be immediately taken to prevent it. Mr. Pinckney, of South 
Carolina, therefore, at the beginning of this session, intro- 
duced a series of three resolutions to the following effect : 
First, That Congress has no power to interfere with slavery 
in the states ; second, That it would be wrong to interfere 
with slavery in the District of Columbia ; third, That petitions, 
etc., relating to slavery be laid on the table without debate. 5 
These resolutions were adopted practically without opposition 
and for ten years were more or less strictly enforced. At this 
time there was in the House perhaps the most remarkable 
character in all its history, in the person of John Quincy 
Adams, who had enjoyed every honor within the gift of the 
nation and who was now representing Massachusetts. Mr. 
Adams opposed this blow at the constitutional right of peti- 
tion with great energy, and continued to oppose it during the 
long time the rule was in force and he lived to see the ob- 
noxious rule abrogated on his motion. One of the things that 
tended to increase the number of memorials to Congress at 
this time was the application of Arkansas for admission to 
the Union. The so-called border states or those touching 
and bounding on the slave states were always a source of 
annoyance to slave holders. The sight of such territory al- 
ways made the eyes of the slave glisten for freedom and 
tempted him to run away. Then, too, there were individuals 
in the slave states, and especially in these border states, who 
were as bitterly opposed to slavery as the rankest Abolition- 
ist, men and women as deeply touched with the spirit of hu- 
manity, as deeply grieved over the groans and tears of the 
slaves. Some of these would break away and leave like the 
Grimke sisters and Birney. Statistics show that at the time 
of the war there were perhaps ten times as many people liv- 
ing in the North who were born in the South as there were 
of those who had gone from the North to make their homes 
in the South. Yet there still remained in the South many per- 
sons of superior culture and enlightened Christianity who 
chafed under the tyrannical rule of the majority. Then, too, 



5. Register First Session Twenty-fourth Congress, Feb. 8, 1836. Right of pe- 
tition expressly denied to slaves by vote of House, Feb. 11, 1837. Globe, Second 
Session, Twenty-fourth Congress, p. 184. 



[42] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

there were persons in the border states, in fact in all the 
states who were as rabidly pro-slavery as any to be found 
about the burning marls of Georgia, persons who could leer 
as complacently on slaves shivering on the damp dirt floor 
of the slave pen as the most fiendish slave trader to be found 
in the swirling maelstrom of the infamous traffic in Missis- 
sippi or Louisiana. One of the most serious problems the 
slave-holder had to confront was as to how to keep the slaves 
furthest removed from the sight of free black men, to keep 
them under the impression that all black people were slaves, 
hopeless and abandoned. The individual slave-holder, there- 
fore, who had the hardihood to liberate his slaves, imme- 
diately lost caste and was regarded as but little better than a 
criminal, and generally had to leave the community in order 
to escape the scorn and contumely of his neighbors. Indeed, 
there was no place in society for a man without slaves in 
slave communities, and the result was that all but the poor 
whites held slaves and the poor whites suffered under a 
heavier load of contempt than even the slaves. No respect- 
able white man could work with his hands, and as a conse- 
quence, the poor whites trying to be respectable, did not work 
at all. Thus by degrading labor, slavery made it quite impos- 
sible for any except the wealthier classes to live comfortably 
in the South. The institution completely robbed the com- 
munity of a middle class, the backbone of society. Indeed, 
none had a more just cause for thanking the Lord and Abra- 
ham Lincoln for liberating the slaves than the poor white 
people of the South. Landless, moneyless and with no occu- 
pation except that of overseer, they were dubbed "trash" by 
the colored folks while the pampered master class smiled de- 
risively at the appellation. The best of them were the mean- 
est sort of rascals. But as great as was the menace of this 
poor white mass to the rich man's sheep pen, corn crib and 
hen roost, the danger of having free Negroes at large in the 
community was regarded as being far greater. The Territory 
of Arkansas, therefore, before applying for admission to the 
Union, adopted a constitution expressly prohibiting its citi- 
zens from emancipating their slaves. This provision naturally 

[43] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

aroused a storm of protest and an insistent demand for its 
elimination before admitting the state. The protests were 
vain, however, except for the fact that they served to offer 
fresh points of attack against slavery in the Congressional 
debates. Arkansas was duly admitted in 1836 with its con- 
stitution unamended. This instrument was regarded as be- 
ing extreme, even by many pro-slavery men, who saw in it 
an additional weapon in the hands of their enemies. The 
Democratic party was never better organized than under the 
administration of President Jackson, who was the embodi- 
ment of the highest ideals of its controlling wing, the element 
pledged to the protection and propagation of slavery. Under 
Jackson's administration, anti-slavery men were either driven 
out of the South or silenced. The Lundys and Embrees could 
no longer remain in Tennessee and Garrison was clapped into 
jail in Baltimore, where he was incarcerated for seven weeks 
for his attack upon one Captain Todd, a Yankee skipper, 
whom Garrison charged with smuggling slaves into the 
South. Of course Garrison could not sustain the charge be- 
fore a Baltimore jury and was consequently convicted of libel 
and sentenced to prison, where he remained until Arthur 
Tappan, Esq., of New York, paid the fine and secured his re- 
lease. The pathetic story of Rev. Charles T. Torrey may still 
be read engraved upon the monument erected over his grave 
in Auburn, the cemetery in Boston where so many of the 
illustrious sons of Massachusetts sleep. Young and enthu- 
siastic and zealous for what he thought was right, Mr. Tor- 
rey went to Baltimore in 1846 to work in the interest of the 
slaves, went to prison, went to his death there at the age of 
thirty-three. When it was known that this young clergy- 
man's health had been broken and that he was dying of con- 
sumption, hundreds of people signed a petition to the Gover- 
nor of Maryland praying for a pardon, for the release of Tor- 
rey that he might come home to die, but these prayers were 
in vain and he was doomed to die in his dungeon. Nor was 
the sentiment of Boston a great deal better than that of Bal- 
timore at this time. On being released from his Baltimore 
prison Garrison went to Boston, where he immediately began 

[44] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

to publish his "Liberator" and was immediately mobbed by 
the "respectable citizens" of the city, who, after destroying 
his little printing office and breaking up his press, dragged 
the intrepid editor through the streets with a rope about his 
body. But Garrison fared a little better than Rev. Elijah P. 
Lovejoy did at Alton, 111., in 1837. Lovejoy's press was not 
Only broken up and thrown into the river, but Lovejoy was 
murdered. And it may be questioned whether any event that 
ever happened during the whole anti-slavery agitation, ex- 
cepting the raid of John Brown, damaged the cause of slavery 
to such an extent as did the death of Lovejoy. The mobbing 
of Garrison stirred Boston, but the world was aroused by 
Wendell Phillips, who took the lecture platform against 
slavery on account of the death of Lovejoy. Whether it was 
due to the cause he advocated or to his exceeding natural 
ability, it is pretty generally conceded that Wendell Phillips 
had no peer as a platform lecturer and orator, certainly none 
in his day. Cultured Boston might affect to ignore Garrison, 
but Phillips was one of her sons, one of her best, one of her 
most cultured, and when he made his memorable reply to At- 
torney-General Austin, on the occasion of the Lovejoy meet- 
ing at Boston's historic hall, they discovered that he was one 
of their most gifted. 

After the memorable fight over the Missouri Compromise 
in 1820, slavery became and remained the leading question 
before the country, — alive, active, omnipresent. The abstruse 
disertations of essayists and scholarly sermons of men like 
Channing began to give way in northern pulpits to the glow- 
ing eloquence of men like Parker, Cheever and Furness ; the 
comparatively polite and apologetic arguments of men like 
Lundy, in his "Genius of Universal Emancipation" were being 
drowned by the thunders of a Garrison from his tripod in the 
office of the "Liberator," and many who in 1820 agreed with 
Representatives Talmage and Taylor, in their advocacy of 
gradual emancipation, found themselves in hearty accord with 
Slade and Giddings, in their advocacy of immediate emancipa- 
tion in 1837. It therefore happened that when President 
Van Buren entered upon his administration in 1837, he not 

[45J 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

only found the slave power at its height in the South, but he 
found New England and large sections of the North on the 
verge of inaugurating a united opposition to the system while 
the news from the West was exceedingly gloomy as to any 
further extension of the institution in that section. Sedate 
discussion of the question from the easy chair of the school 
man was approaching an end, while the common people were 
entering the list who, in language, if less elegant, still not less 
pointed, referring to the slave-holder as ''dirty. " In the 
streets of northern cities where southerners were once 
fawned upon and flattered, children would now snicker at 
them and hurl the opprobrious epithet as they scuttled into 
alleys. There was to be no more fencing with slavery with 
buttons on the foils. And although Garrison and his school 
continued to pin their hope to moral suasion, James G. Bir- 
ney, of Kentucky, who had liberated his slaves and joned Gar- 
rison in Boston, had already begun his appeal to the ballot 
through the medium of his "Liberty Party," to which there 
was a hearty response. The big politicians, however, were 
making every effort to suppress the discussion to keep it 
from becoming a national issue upon which they would have 
to declare themselves. President Van Buren, the Halifax of 
his party and of his day, seeing the drift of affairs, made no 
reference to slavery in his first annual message. Notwith- 
standing this omission, like Banquo's ghost, the question 
would not down. The first constitutions adopted by many of 
the states immediately after the Revolution were comprehen- 
sive in their democracy and quite liberal in their provisions 
with reference to colored people. At the behest of slave- 
holders nearly or quite all of these constitutions were changed 
or amended between 1830 and 1840, so as to provide a legal 
status for free Negroes as near to the level of the slaves as 
possible, and in order to make freedom appear less desirable 
still, the free Negro was practically outlawed. The frequent 
sight of some poor colored person being dragged through the 
streets of northern cities by kidnappers in the employ of slave- 
holders, or the sight of this sordid horde of thugs, generally 
regarded by the public as being far beneath the social level of 

[46] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the meanest dog-catchers, chasing some panting fugitive, the 
mobbing of anti-slavery speakers, which culminated in the 
murder of Lovejoy, about this time, served to make Van 
Buren's silence on slavery count for but little. For an age 
Quakers had been bombarding Congressmen with petitions 
touching the question ; for a long time, too, these petitions 
had been denied a hearing in Congress. But state legislatures 
now began to adopt resolutions concerning slavery which 
they demanded their Representatives at Washington to pre- 
sent. And so it happened that although President Van Bur- 
en's message gave no pretext or excuse for opening the dis- 
cussion in Congress, Mr. Slade had placed in his hand a reso- 
lution adopted by the State of Vermont, which he represent- 
ed, demanding the abolition of the slave trade in the District 
of Columbia, which he desired to have read by the Clerk of 
the House. Congress had already decreed that all petitions 
touching the slavery question should be neither read nor dis- 
cussed within its walls. This instrument, however, emanated 
from a sovereign state, whose accredited representative was 
endeavoring to carry out an imposed obligation. Nevertheless 
the presentation of this resolution caused the greatest excite- 
ment. The members from the South rose en masse and above 
the sound of the uproar, the voice of Mr. Wise was heard 
calling to his colleagues from Virginia to leave the hall and 
he led them out. Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, followed suit, 
and while Mr. Slade was endeavoring to read his resolution, 
most of the members from Virgina, South Carolina and 
Georgia left the chamber. These seceding members met in 
a committee room and resolved: "That all petitions, etc.. 
touching slavery be laid on the table without being read, re- 
ferred or any other action taken on them," and made the adop- 
tion of this by the House the condition upon which they 
would return to their seats. The House eagerly adopted this 
measure by a vote of 122 to 74, 38 of the affirmative votes 
coming from the Free states. 

Mr. Calhoun now brought forward and offered a series of 
five resolutions, as follows : First, "That the states entered 
this Union simply for the purpose of securing its social and 

[47] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

political advantages; second, That each state retains power 
over its domestic institutions ; third, That the Federal Gov- 
ernment is bound to protect these institutions; fourth. That 
slavery is an institution of the southern states; fifth, That 
intermeddling with slavery is dangerous." In these resolu- 
tions Mr. Calhoun showed that he was not only a high priest 
of the slavery cult, but that he was the vicar-general of the 
old school of anti-Federalists and the grand chancellor of the 
school of State Rights for which he came near being hanged 
by Andrew Jackson. Nor will any impartial historian 
impugn the sincerity of Mr. Calhoun and his followers. 
The spirit of these resolutions reached far beneath the 
question of slavery and touched the very foundation of 
the difference between the political system of Jefferson and 
Hamilton, a difference unquestionably honest between two of 
the most illustrious patriots the country ever produced, a 
difference upon a question lawfully debatable among us until 
after the Civil War, which was induced by it, and only par- 
tially settled by the results of that event, and which our Con- 
gress and Supreme Court have since been vainly trying to 
reconcile — between the powers, authority and jurisdiction of 
the states and the power, functions and jurisdiction of the 
nation. When Mr Calhoun came so near to serious trouble 
during the administration of President Jackson, the matter 
did not concern slavery but the tariff. The Calhoun resolu- 
tions, therefore, provoked a long and searching debate before 
the Senate adopted them by the decisive vote of 55 to 9. The 
House adopted a set of similar resolutions at the beginning of 
its session on December 3, 1838. But notwithstanding such 
resolutions the Congressional opposition to slavery continued 
to increase in spirit and bitterness. Mr. Giddings launched 
his first lengthy attack on the floor of the House on Febru- 
ary 13, 1839, in connection with a proposed appropriation for 
a bridge across the eastern branch of the Potomac in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. Young and impetuous and freshly com- 
missioned by his constituents, Mr. Giddings handled the sub- 
ject in a manner that created a sensation among his older 
colleagues who had been brow-beaten by southerners so long 

[48] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

that the latter had become to regard their arrogant domina- 
tion as a right and privilege on the one hand, to which, on the 
other, the former assumed to regard it as their duty meekly 
to submit. Giddings' speech was the topic of conversation 
about the capitol for days, while the speaker himself was 
looked upon as an impudent monstrosity by Congressmen 
from the South and as a very daring and, perhaps, dangerous 
fellow by all the rest. Old politicians, who had for years been 
vassals of the slave power, doubting the extent to which Gid- 
dings represented the sentiments of his constituents, strained 
their ears for what they thought was the sure approach of 
a storm of protest, but nothing was heard from the West but 
commendation. But worse still, the cloud and scowl caused 
by his speech had not passed from the brow of southern Con- 
gressmen nor had the shivers ceased to chase up and down 
the backbones of those from the North before Hon. John 
Jay and forty other distinguished citizens of New York pe- 
titioned Congress, praying for a general emancipation Act 
to take effect July 4, 1842. This petition was placed in the 
hands of John Quincy Adams, who on February 25, 1839, 
asked that the rules might be suspended for the purpose of 
enabling him to lay the matter before the House. Of course 
the request was denied without hesitation and with scorn 6 
and so the matter died in the hands of the venerable states- 
man. 

In the Twenty-sixth Congress, which met in 1839, there 
were four open and avowed opponents of slavery, John 
Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts; William Slade, of Ver- 
mont; Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, and Seth M. Gates, of 
New York. Besides these members, among other things to 
enliven this session was the Texas question. One of the un- 
fortunate things about slavery was the fact that it could 
never get enough room, a situation that constant attempts 
were made to remedy, but which was as impossible as it 
would be for an individual to acquire all the land adjoining 
his own. The smoke of our battles with the Indians in the 
second Seminole War had not ceased to drape the horizon, 



6. Giddings, p. 132. 

[49] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

nor had the eyes of the Cherokees been dried of the tears for 
their ancestral wigwams in Georgia and the hunting ground 
from which they had been expelled, before we had begun to 
conspire and intrigue against Mexico for the acquisition of 
Texas. For years the plot had been thickening; for years we 
had been throwing into the witches' cauldron of conspiracy 
and mendacity every ingredient calculated to make it boil 
and bubble until there was an ostensible revolt against 
Mexico on the part of the inhabitants occupying the Texas 
territory. Our part was to encourage the Texans to pretend 
to establish an independent government and to hoist its flag 
with a lone star in 1836. After a short interval of this mimic 
show and stage play, these revolutionists, led by the hirelings 
of the United States which, at the time, was but another 
name for the slave power, applied for annexation to our 
Union. Now while we naturally wanted Texas, we naturally 
did not want war, but we just had to have Texas. The Mexi- 
cans and everybody else knew that we were behind the 
scheme, and since there was little hope of deceiving anybody, 
after the so-called secession of Texas from Mexico, we imme- 
diately began a campaign to educate our people to the point 
of seeing the necessity of incorporating Texas into the Union. 
Accordingly the Texas question was kept before Congress on 
one pretext or another in order that Congress might be used 
as the central propaganda. If nothing else should be avail- 
able, some one would bring forward a claim for a slave who 
was alleged to have escaped, when a lengthy, if not learned, 
speech would be made on the ways and means of preventing 
such catastrophies, especially in states adjoining Mexico. 
There were many sharp debates in connection with such mat- 
ters, which at times went from the sublime to the ridiculous. 
There was, for instance, a bill before the House for the reim- 
bursement of certain southern citizens on account of money 
alleged to have been spent by them for bloodhounds imported 
from Cuba, along with their Spanish trainers, and used in the 
Seminole War. These hounds, it was claimed, were brought 
from Cuba for the purpose of running down Negroes and In- 
dians engaged in the war who made their headquarters in the 

[50] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Florida swamps. The experience of the Georgia expedition 
and of Major Dade had taught our soldier slave hunters 
something of the danger of entering these swamps, and so a 
resort was had to bloodhounds. When this particular claim 
was under consideration and payment was about to be voted, 
Mr. Adams, knowing that he would not be allowed to speak, 
and that at all events his objections would be futile, offered 
a facetious resolution, gravely inquiring into the pedigree of 
this new class of soldiers, the terms of their enlistment and 
whether or not their "widows" were to have the benefit of 
our pension laws. 7 Of course Mr. Adams' resolution was not 
considered any more than a serious objection on his part 
would have been. 

At this particular time, however, unusual efforts were made 
to shut off the agitation of the slavery question as much as 
possible on account of the embarrassing effect upon presiden- 
tial candidates about to be nominated. The tariff question 
was, therefore, given the greatest prominence, though it was 
well known that the Texas situation would have to be dealt 
with by the incoming administration. The Whigs nominated 
William Henry Harrison, a man possessed of the most choice 
prerequisites for the presidency in the eyes of the politicians 
of his day ; he had a good war record and a better pro-slavery 
record. From 1802 to 1807 he had made a most gallant fight 
for the introduction of slavery into Indiana, 8 which effort had 
failed through no fault of his but simply because the people 
would not have slavery. The forces favorable to slavery and 
those against it had a most conclusive test of their respective 
powers during the contest for the election of a delegate to 
represent the territory in Congress. A native Virginian, one 
Mr. Randolph, at that time the Attorney-General of the ter- 
ritory, was the pro-slavery candidate for delegate, and had 
the most energetic support of Harrison, then Governor, who 
took the stump and told the people that if Randolph were 
elected the Ordinance of 1787 would be repealed and slavery 
permitted in that section. Opposed to Randolph was a young 



7. Congressional Globe, Mar. 9, 1840. 

8. Araer. Conflict, Vol. I, p. 52; Annals, March 2, 1803, ibid. November 13, 1807. 



[51] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

man from Pennsylvania, Jonathan Jennings by name, and 
described as "an inexperienced youth ;" still Jennings beat 
Randolph on this clear-cut issue by a vote of 3 to l. 9 

Having made such a record, General Harrison was excep- 
tionally strong as a candidate for the presidency, and, after 
a hard cider campaign, and one in which other such material 
made strong arguments, he was duly elected. President Har- 
rison died within a month after his inauguration and what 
course he would have taken, had he lived, on the question of 
admitting Texas, is not known. It was generally under- 
stood at the time, however, that the Whig party was opposed 
to it. 

In the meantime, Adams and Giddings availed themselves 
of every opportunity to prod the adherents of slavery on the 
floor of the House. Giddings boldly introduced a set of radi- 
cal anti-slavery resolutions, for which he was censured by 
that body in March, 1842. He immediately resigned and re- 
turned home, only to be sent back within five weeks by an 
overwhelming majority of the people of his district. Mr. 
Adams, also, was hauled up, but he managed to get the privi- 
lege of making a defense, a privilege denied to Giddings ; and 
when he was asked how long it would take him to prepare 
and make his defense, quietly, replied that "it took Burke six 
months to prepare and deliver his speech in connection with 
the trial of Warren Hastings, but that he thought he might 
be able to get through with his in "ninety days." The resolu- 
tion of censure was laid on the table, for it was believed that 
if "Old Adams," as some who disliked him called him, instead 
of "Old Man Eloquent," as he was called by his admirers, 
were given three months to speak, the whole world of slavery 
would be shaken to its center; besides, damaging criticism 
would follow the expenditure of money and the suspension of 
public business for such a purpose for so long a time. None 
of these things seemed to move Mr. Adams, however, nor to 
balk him in his purpose to annoy his opponents. The House 
was called upon to consider a bill for an amendment to the 
charter of Alexandria, Va., extending the suffrage to all "free 



9. Congressional Globe, First Session, Twenty-ninth Congress, p. 180. 

[52] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

white citizens." Mr. Adams promptly moved to strike out the 
word "white" and his insistence upon the consideration of his 
motion caused the whole thing to be laid upon the table 
rather than have any discussion. 

The sentiment against slavery was now 'noticeably on the 
increase and was daily assuming a more defiant tone. In 1844 
Mr. Adams presented a petition from citizens of New York 
praying Congress to pass some law relieving the people of the 
Free states from contributing to the support of slavery. The 
petition was not only read but debated, a thing that had not 
occurred in connection with such matters for a long time. 
This petition was even referred to the Judiciary Committee 
by a vote of 97 to 80. A similar request, emanating from the 
Legislature of Massachusetts reached Congress about the 
same time, and Mr. Adams had it referred to a special com- 
mittee, of which he was made chairman. The report of this 
special committee, after reviewing the subject under con- 
sideration at some length, called attention to the aggressions 
of slavery and its imposition upon the Free states and closed 
by declaring that "the Declaration of Independence consti- 
tuted a pledge in the name of God solemnly given by each 
state, to abolish slavery as soon as practicable and to substi- 
tute freedom in its place." The report was laid on the table. 

The tide had turned against slavery. The system received 
a mortal blow when England abolished it in the West Indies. 
The civilized world was bound to take notice of the act. With 
freedom in Canada and in the northern portion of the United 
States and freedom in the islands on the south, the fate of 
slavery in the United States was sealed. It had to die. 



[53] 



CHAPTER V 



The Twenty-eighth Congress— The Twenty-ninth Congress (1845) — 
The Constitution of Florida — The Mexican War— The Wilmot 
Proviso— The Thirtieth Congress (1847)— Hale, the First Anti- 
Slavery Senator— Palfrey Enters House— The Death of John 
Quincy Adams. 
The treaty of Ghent signed December 14, 1814, and pro- 
claimed by President Madison February 17, 1815, under which 
peace was concluded with Great Britain after the War 
of 1812, among other things pledged the parties to mutual co- 
operation in any and all steps necessary for the suppression 
of the African slave trade. It appears that England attempted 
in good faith to carry out this provision but that the United 
States was still inclined to connive at man stealing on the 
part of Americans who pretended to be engaged in legitimate 
trade along the African coast. Under England's interpreta- 
tion of the treaty, any vessel suspected of being engaged in 
the slave trade might be held up and searched. It therefore 
happened that several American vessels were searched and 
caught with the goods, as they say. Notwithstanding our 
treaties and conventions touching this question and their 
well-known violation on the part of our citizens, the Senate 
adopted a resolution December 27, 1842, demanding to be ad- 
vised by the President as to what course this government 
might take in relation to the violations of these conventions; 
also what danger there was that the laws and obligations of 
the United States in relation to the suppression of the slave 
trade might be executed by others. This was evidently in- 
tended as a slap at President Tyler for having dared to call 
attention in his annual message just transmitted to Congress, 
to the necessity of our performing our part of the contract 
under the treaty of Ghent in connection with the suppression 
of the African slave trade, otherwise we might find ourselves 
in the position of seeing others perform for us under circum- 
stances that would be more or less humiliating. President 
Tyler responded to this demand in a tone so sharp that the 

[54 J 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

instigators of the resolution were glad to let the matter drop. 
The President plainly told the Senate in his communication, a 
thing that they well knew, to wit, that the African slave 
trader had been declared a pirate and as such had no right to 
claim the protection of the government. When this provision 
was originally incorporated in the treaty referred to, objec- 
tion was raised to it and the question was debated by the 
United States with England for ten years before the conven- 
tion was concluded and signed at London March 13, 1824, by 
the plenipotentiaries of both governments, 1 but we were in 
no hurry to ratify these arrangements, and while haggling 
over the boundary question, the slave traders still hoped to 
evade the provisions applicable to them though they had been 
already definitely settled. Indeed, although we had gone so 
far as to declare these traders pirates by an Act of Congress, 
and all the Powers of Europe had combined to aid in their 
suppression, this species of criminal long survived to harass 
us in our foreign relations even after we had furnished our 
quota of the international fleet to patrol the African coast as 
appears from President Tyler's final message in 1844. The 
nefarious trade went on until England formed something like 
a habit of seizing and condemning these pirate ships, which 
generally turned out to be American. The year 1845 opened 
with war clouds hanging dark and damp over the country. 
After maintaining a so-called independence for more than 
eight years, backed by the moral if not the material support 
of the United States, Texas had at last been received into the 
Union, and all knew that this would mean war with Mexico, 
President Tyler having exerted himself to the utmost for the 
consummation of the scheme. This made another large slave 
state which it was hoped might eventually be cut up into sev- 
eral slave states. Then, too, about this time, Florida, follow- 
ing the example of Arkansas, adopted a constitution under 
which her citizens were prohibited from emancipating their 
slaves, made application and was received into the Union in 
1845. 

Texas had been admitted during the second session of the 



1. Eighth Annual Message President Monroe, December 7,1824. 

[55] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Twenty-eighth Congress, and while President Tyler was 
zealous for the consummation of the scheme, nearly the 
whole of the northern wing of his party (Whig) was against 
it. And in this connection there is said to have been a bar- 
gain struck between the northern Democrats and the south- 
ern contingent of that party under which the former agreed 
to vote for the admission of Texas in consideration of the 
latter agreeing to vote for the exclusion of slavery in the or- 
ganization of the Territory of Oregon. 2 Oregon had been 
jointly occupied up to this period by the United States and 
Canada, but the boundary question had been about settled 
and the territory was now in position to be regularly or- 
ganized. Whether there was any bargain of the sort referred 
to or not, it is worthy of note that the Oregon bill, the 12th 
section of which forever excluded slavery, was passed by the 
House without a single word in opposition, by a vote of 131 
to 69, on January 11, 1847. The Senate, however, did not take 
up the Oregon bill with anything like enthusiasm ; indeed, this 
body pigeon-holed the measure and compelled the territory 
to wait until after Texas was secured. These events natur- 
ally aroused and sustained the anti-slavery sentiment and 
tended to solidify it throughout the country ; nor did anti- 
slavery men in Congress neglect to fan the blaze. At the be- 
ginning of the Twenty-ninth Congress (December 1, 1845) 
Erastus D. Culver, a Representative from New York, pre- 
sented a petition numerously signed by members of all politi- 
cal parties of that state, praying Congress for the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia. The so-called "gag 
rule" under which such matters were laid on the table with- 
out debate had been rescinded, still the influence of that rule 
had not been sufficiently relaxed as to permit of a different 
course being pursued in the case of this petition, which was 
accordingly laid on the table without debate. But the news 
of such a petition could not help but be spread abroad through 
the country. 

The preparation for the Mexican war, which was now upon 
us, tended to obscure the slavery question to some extent dur- 



2. Giddings, p. 248. 

[56] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ing the next two years, and aside from the usual batch of pe- 
titions intended to affect the situation, particularly in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, little or nothing - was done. The great major- 
ity of the American people, however, never heartily approved 
of our war with Mexico, and consequently hostilities did not 
proceed very far before strenuous efforts were made to bring 
the conflict to an end. Of course our diplomatic efforts in 
this direction never contemplated the giving up of Texas, the 
acquisition of which having been the very object for which the 
war was begun. The fact that we demonstrated our inten- 
tion and power of taking the territory, however, made it easy 
for us to offer Mexico a financial consideration notwithstand- 
ing the fact that the war had cost us some three hundred mil- 
lion dollars and about eighty thousand lives. 3 Tentative terms 
having been arranged, Congress took under consideration a 
bill providing for the appropriation of three million dollars 
to be applied on account of this settlement. There was no 
objection to this appropriation as we were particularly anxious 
to get out of the muddle. When the measure came to a vote 
in the House, however, Mr. Ashman, of Massachusetts, of- 
fered a proposition to the effect that slavery should be for- 
ever excluded from any territory that we might acquire from 
Mexico through the exigencies of this war. 

The Speaker ruled this amendment out of order. But the 
fact that the country knew what had caused the war with 
Mexico and was generally criticizing the national govern- 
ment for its course in the matter, inclined Congress to desire 
to settle this controversy as quickly and as quietly as pos- 
sible, so the holding up of this appropriation by the anti- 
slavery forces was embarrassing. A few days after Mr. Ash- 
man's amendment was ruled out, David Wilmot, a Represen- 
tative from Pennsylvania, brought forward his famous pro- 
viso which aimed at the same result as that contemplated by 
Mr. Ashman. This passed the House February 15, 1847, by 
a vote of 115 to 106. The debate on the measure was short 
but sharp. Under this provision slavery had to share the 
fruits of the Mexican war with freedom ; it had to make it- 



3. Giddings, p. 253. 

[57] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

self contented with Texas while the rest of this territorial 
acquisition was dedicated to freedom. 

The first session of the Thirtieth Congress, which opened 
in December, 1847, was considerably changed in its personnel. 
The Senate now for the first time had a member who was 
not only an avowed opponent of slavery extension, but one 
who had been a storm center in a contest based squarely 
upon that issue in his state. This was Hon. John P. Hale, of 
New Hampshire. The little company of out-and-out anti- 
slavery men in the House, too, had a valuable accession in 
the person of Mr. John G. Palfrey, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
Palfrey made his first important speech on the slavery ques- 
tion early in January, 1848, in connection with President 
Polk's message concerning Mexico. His reputation for learn- 
ing caused his utterances to be listened to with great atten- 
tion and respect, and this speech on Mr. Polk's message rela- 
tive to the Mexican war, which could hardly be treated with- 
out involving slavery, so pleased the venerable Mr. Adams 
that he exclaimed from his seat : "Thank God. The seal is 
broken, Massachusetts speaks." 4 

New Hampshire, which had hitherto been perhaps the most 
pro-slavery of all the eastern states, was now, since the Hale 
campaign, about in the lead against any extension of the sys- 
tem. On December 30, 1847, Mr. Amos Tuck, a Representa- 
tive from that state, presented a petition from Joseph Lindsay 
and seventy other prominent persons of Philadelphia, Pa., 
praying Congress to dispose of the public lands and use the 
proceeds for the abolition of slavery. Although the petition, 
like all others of the kind, was laid on the table, the vote in 
this case being 86 to 70, the matter attracted unusual atten- 
tion because of the prominence of the petitioners and the ap- 
parent definiteness of their purpose. The outside pressure 
upon Congress was increasing daily and this pressure was 
constantly stimulated by frequent happenings in Washington 
under the noses of Congressmen. For instance, there was a 
colored man employed in the house at which Mr. Giddings 
and a number of other Congressmen boarded. The owner of 



4. Giddings, p. 266. 

[58] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

this man had agreed to allow him to purchase his freedom 
and most of the money had been paid on account, but just 
before the final payment was to have been made, the poor 
wretch was seized and sold into perpetual slavery by his 
treacherous owner. Mr. Giddings, among others, saw this 
faithful servant bound with ropes and carried off by a heart- 
less slave trader. When this poor fellow's wife learned what 
had happened she slew her little girl and herself. A few days 
later Mr. Giddings saw a colored girl of nineteen years, who 
had been given permission to visit her mother, who lived 
across the eastern branch of the Potomac, and was on her 
way there. She discovered that she was being pursued by 
slave catchers or patrolmen, and bounded over the rail of the 
bridge to death in the river. Mr. Giddings was deeply moved 
by these experiences, and on January 17, 1848, introduced in 
the House a resolution of the following tenor : "That a com- 
mittee be appointed to report some measure repealing all 
laws, ordinances, regulations of all kinds whatever under and 
by virtue of which persons may be bought or sold in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia." At the same time he offered another reso- 
lution with preamble setting forth what he had witnessed 
as above mentioned in which he peremptorily demanded that 
Congress should either stop the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia or remove the capitol to some free state. A mo- 
tion was made, as usual, to lay these resolutions on the table 
and on the first vote the motion was lost by a vote of 85 ayes 
to 86 nays. Another vote was forthwith secured and in this 
the slave party triumphed by a vote of 94 to 88, but the nar- 
row escape experienced by the slave party on this occasion 
created a sensation. 5 Determined to force the issue, Mr. Gid- 
dings, on January 31, introduced a set of similar resolutions 
and these were followed by resolutions introduced by Mr. 
Tuck on May 20, designed to accomplish the same purpose. 
Although these resolutions were laid on the table, they served 
to annoy and to sting the slave party. In the meantime Con- 
gress was being flooded with petitions and resolutions eman- 



5. "There was great confusion and much excitement in the House," said the 
Reporter. 

[59] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ating from state legislatures and benevolent organizations 
bearing on the question. The slave power had not experi- 
enced such bold defiance for more than a generation and these 
radical resolutions following a phillipic against the system de- 
livered by Mr. Palfrey, on January 26, 1848, in which he re- 
ferred to our first fugitive slave law as "the heinous crime of 
'93" were very distressing. Mr. Palfrey's opposition to slavery 
was especially hurtful to the slave party because all felt that 
his actions were founded on deep convictions rather than 
mere policy. His father had resided in the South a great por- 
tion of his lifetime and held slaves ; these the young Mr. Pal- 
frey promptly liberated when they fell to him on the death of 
his father, and returned to Massachusetts. Thus Massachu- 
setts continued to be as conspicuous in the anti-slavery cause 
within Congress as on the outside. "The Old Man Eloquent" 
(John Quincy Adams) who had more than glorified the name 
of his state in this struggle, especially in his championing of 
the right of petition when it was smitten from the hands of 
the citizens, was now dead, having passed away February 23, 
1848. Mr. Palfrey by this time had been in the House just 
about long enough to justify his reputation for learning and 
so, in a manner, he filled the place of Mr. Adams until the 
coming of Sumner, "the noblest Roman of them all." 



[60] 



CHAPTER VI 



The Formation of the Free Soil Party — The Beginning of the End 
of the Whig Party — Presidential Candidates of '48 — Section- 
alization of Political Parties — Election of Taylor. 

The year 1848 was a presidential year, and as might have 
been expected from the character of the men constituting the 
Massachusetts delegation in Congress, and the fact that the 
question of slavery or no slavery had been made the main 
issue in the state campaign that resulted in the election of 
the legislature which sent Hale to the Senate from New 
Hampshire, signs of the intention to make the slavery ques- 
tion a national issue in politics soon became manifest. The 
country has never lacked for men willing to serve it as 
President whatever the issue or platform upon which candi- 
dates are required to stand. And so, besides the regular 
Democratic and Whig parties, the anti-slavery men consti- 
tuted themselves into a party after swallowing up Birney's 
Liberty party, and came out under the name and style of 
Free Soil party. The consummation of the Texas troubles, 
which resulted in the Mexican war, had so aroused the indig- 
nation of many northern Democrats and Whigs that they 
joined this new movement in great numbers largely as a re- 
buke to their leaders who had allowed themselves to become 
mere tools in the hands of the southern wing of their re- 
spective parties in support of an institution which the non- 
slave-holding states had long since learned "to oppose in 
politics, repudiate in economics and to loathe in morals." As 
long as this opposition in politics, etc., etc., was based on 
mere sentiment, it did not manifest any particular strength 
among voters outside of lecture halls, but when men began 
to reflect that the Mexican war was not the only one that 
slavery had brought upon the country, it being well known 
that the Indian wars traced their origin to the same source, 
they began to ask themselves when and where taxation and 
the slaughter of men on account of slavery would end. 

[61] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Not a few of the old leaders found themselves in a dilemma. 
Webster, in a burst of pathetic eloquence, after delivering 
himself of an inimitable eulogy of his party, dramatically 
asked of his listening constituents : "If you put me out of the 
Whig Party where will I go?" Mr. Webster's question was 
not so hard to answer by men who put principle above policy 
and who never hoped or even desired to be President. It was 
doubtless hard for one like Mr. Webster to appreciate the 
force of the silent revolution in progress in the United States 
between 1820 and 1850. The constant sound of his own praise 
rendered him less capable of catching the ominous notes of 
warning. The time had come, however, when new leaders 
were demanded to meet the new condition. 

A second or honor term as President has always been 
greatly desired by those who have once served. Mr. Van 
Buren cherished the hope of being given a second term, but 
as he had displeased the South by certain utterances besides 
having committed himself 1 to an anti-Texas policy during his 
administration, his party refused him a second nomination. 
Mr. Van Buren was more out of relation with his party than 
ever in 1848. The Democrats of his state (New York) were 
completely f actionized; there were the anti-Texas men, or 
"Barn-burners" (so called because it was claimed that the 
South would secede unless Texas should be admitted, and 
those who opposed it were likened to the farmer that burns 
down his barn to get rid of the rats) ; there were Van Buren 
men and "Hunkers" or "northern men with southern prin- 
ciples ;" and there were "Soft Hunkers" or those who were 
less violently pro-slavery. 2 

And when the Democratic Convention of 1848 met at Bal- 
timore there were two sets of delegates from New York : the 
"Barn-burners," led by Samuel Young, and the "Hunkers," 
led by Daniel Dickinson. The convention voted to seat all of 
these delegates, but this failed to bring harmony and a split, 
led by the Massachusetts Free Soilers, who were subsequently 



1. Morse's Van Buren, pp. 347-65, Amer. Conflict, Vol. I, p. 152. 

2. During and just after the war, the term "Copper Heads" was applied to 
"northern men with southern principles," among whom C. L. Vallandingham, 
of Ohio, and Fernando Wood, of New York, were conspicuous. 



[62] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

joined by malcontented fragments now rapidly crumbling off 
from both of the old parties, called a convention that met at 
Buffalo, N. Y., on August 7, when and where Martin Van 
Buren and Charles Francis Adams were nominated for Presi- 
dent and Vice-President respectively. The platform on which 
these candidates invited the suffrage of the voters was both 
explicit and concise. 3 It declared a belief not only in slavery 
restriction but in slavery extinction. One of their significant 
resolves was as follows : "That the proviso of Jefferson pro- 
hibiting the extension of slavery after 1800 in any and all ter- 
ritories of the United States, northern and southern ; the 
votes of six states and sixteen delegates in the Congress of 
1784 for the proviso to three states and seven delegates 
against it * * * and the entire history of that period 
shows that it was the policy of the nation not to extend, na- 
tionalize or encourage slavery, but to limit, localize and dis- 
courage it ; and to this policy which should have never been 
departed from, the government ought to return." These reso- 
lutions were reported by Gen. B. F. Butler, and concluded as 
follows : "We will inscribe on our banners, Free Soil, Free 
Speech, Free Labor and Freemen, and under it we will fight 
on and ever." 4 

While Mr. Van Buren did not receive any votes in the 
electoral college, his popular vote was 291,342. s He ran par- 
ticularly well in Massachusetts, and it is said that the size of 
his vote in that state was largely due to the activity and in- 
fluence of Charles Sumner. 6 This was the old Birney party 
which was organized just before the campaign of 1840, when 
it stood for the immediate and unconditional emancipation of 
the slaves and differed from Garrison's movement only in 
method. By 1848 this party had received large accessions 
from the ranks of both Whigs and Democrats in the North 
and had had injected into it substantial modifications; even 
the name had been changed from Liberty party to Free Soil 
party and its position on the slavery question had changed 



3. Stanwood's Pol. Conventions, 1848. 

4. Stan wood; also Morse's Van Buren, 365. 

5. Morse, p. 368. 

6. Morse, p. 369. 



[63] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

from the advocacy of slavery extinction to the advocacy of 
slavery restriction. The bold resolution passed by the Buffalo 
Convention touching slavery as above related, was doubtless 
adopted to please the old Birney men who were known to 
have been some sixty-eight thousand strong in 1844, and 
were considered to be stronger still in 1848, as the annexation 
of Texas and the Mexican War had almost completely sec- 
tionalized the old political parties. The southern Democrats 
and Whigs coalesced for the protection of slavery, or rather 
the southern Democrats, who had always sustained the slave 
power, absorbed the southern Whigs, while the opponents of 
slavery in the North, East and W 7 est were beginning the 
coalescence that culminated in the formation of the Repub- 
lican party of '56. The opponents of slavery, however, were 
far from being united in 1848. Among them there were Free 
Soilers, "Know Nothings," and those who still called them- 
selves Whigs. It took the Kansas-Nebraska troubles and the 
Omnibus Bill of 1850 to bring these discordant elements 
together. Matters stood thus when Taylor was elected in 
1848. 



164 



CHAPTER VJ1 



Thirtieth Congress, Second Session — The Gott Resolution for Aboli- 
tion of Slavery in District of Columbia — Slavery Excluded 
from California and New Mexico — South Carolina Hints at 
Secession and Civil War — Thirty-first Congress — Fugitive Slave 
Act — Protest of South. 

Mr. Van Buren, on his platform advocating the restriction 
of slavery, made a showing in this campaign that attracted 
nation-wide attention and resulted in giving great impetus 
to the reform movement. When at the opening of the sec- 
ond session of the Thirtieth Congress in 1848, Mr. Palfrey 
offered a bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of 
Columbia, it was not surprising that only twenty-one mem- 
bers of the House of Representatives from free states could 
be found who were willing to have their names recorded 
against the measure. This number, however, was sufficient 
to defeat the bill. Closely following the Palfrey measure, 
Mr. Daniel Gott, of New York, on December 30, 1848, intro- 
duced a most radical resolution, in which slavery was de- 
nounced in the most scathing terms and in which he per- 
emptorily demanded the abolition of the slave trade in the 
District of Columbia. This resolution was adopted by a vote 
of 98 to 88, amid the wildest excitement. Just before the vote 
was taken, Mr. Venable, of North Carolina, had the question 
so divided that each member was compelled to have his name 
recorded directly for or against slavery. Every member from 
slave states voted in the negative, while all but fifteen from the 
free states voted in the affirmative. Even before this, Mr. 
J. M. Root, of Ohio, had introduced (December 13) a resolu- 
tion instructing the Committee on the Territories to report a 
bill excluding slavery from New Mexico and California, which 
had been adopted by a vote of 108 to 80, every Whig and all 
but eight Democrats from the North having voted for it. 
Pursuant to instruction, the Committee on Territories re- 
ported a bill in accordance with the Root resolution in the 

[65] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

early part of 1849, which was passed by the House after a 
short debate, by a vote of 126 to 87, though every member 
from the slave states voted against it. The Senate strove to 
defeat this bill, and so it was held up and debated from time 
to time until the last day of the session before it was voted 
upon and passed by that body. 

For years the slave-holders had led in the social and politi- 
cal life about Washington, where they were wont to stride 
about followed by a retinue of servants contemptuously 
scowling at "Mud Sills" from the West and "Dough Faces" 
from the North and East. They had come to regard any in- 
terference with their practices as an unfair assault upon their 
rights. Nor were they at all backward about giving expres- 
sion to their feelings of resentment. On February 13, 1849, 
the Legislature of South Carolina transmitted to Congress 
and to the governors of the several states, copies of the fol- 
lowing: "Resolved, unanimously, that the time for discussion 
by the slave-holding states of their exclusion from the terri- 
tory recently acquired from Mexico is past, and that this Gen- 
eral Assembly, representing the feeling of the State of South 
Carolina, is prepared to co-operate with her sister states in 
resisting the application of the principles of the Wilmot Pro- 
viso to such territory at any hazard. 7 The slavery restriction- 
ists heard these resolutions with a stolid indifference border- 
ing on contempt. But these were exciting days in Congress 
and there were many happenings on the outside which con- 
tributed to the general turmoil. On the 17th of April (1848) 
a party of some eighty slaves was apprehended in an endeavor 
to effect their escape from the District of Columbia and all 
were brought back and lodged in the district jail. Mr. Giddings 
promptly introduced a resolution inquiring by what authority 
the United States jail was used for such purpose. Upon the 
reading of this resolution Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, de- 
clared his intention to offer an amendment to the resolution 
in case it should be pressed, so as to have it include in its 
scope the inquiry as to whether the "scoundrels who caused 
the slaves to be there should not be hung." The matter caused 



7. Globe Second Session, Thirtieth Congress, p. 519. 

[66] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the greatest excitement in the House ; members arose en 
masse and the Speaker was compelled to suspend everything 
for some time before order was restored. The populace in 
some way conceived the notion that Mr. Giddings had some- 
thing to do with the plans of these slaves in their attempted 
escape, and for two nights a howling mob surrounded his 
house threatening him and his property. The situation be- 
came so acute that Mr. Palfrey offered a resolution inquiring 
into the behavior of this mob, and in the midst of the flurry 
caused by the reading of this proposition, Mr. Giddings arose 
and said that he had just visited the prisoners in his capacity 
as a man and a member of the House, and told them that they 
should have counsel and their rights protected. "Now let 
gentlemen say what they please," said he defiantly. 

The old question as to whether slaves were property again 
had to be answered by the House in January, 1849. A man 
by the name of Pacheco claimed to have lost a slave 8 through 
the exigencies of the second Seminole War, in 1835, and ac- 
cordingly petitioned Congress for relief. The Military Com- 
mittee, to which the matter was referred, had made a favor- 
able report, but when it came to a vote in the House that body 
refused to recognize the claim by a vote of 91 to 89. In com- 
menting upon this vote, Mr. Giddings said: "It sorely morti- 
fied and depressed the slave-holders as it showed that south- 
ern influence and party dictation could no longer subject the 
consciences of northern men to the barbarous doctrine that 
men are property." 

The only object in allowing slave-holders to count three- 
fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation at the 
time of the adoption of the Constitution was to equalize as 
far as possible the influence between the non-slave-holding 
and the slave-holding sections. This arrangement had been 
seriously affected by the passage of the Ordinance of 1787 
which had the effect of excluding slavery from the great 
Northwest Territory. Even if Congress at this time had 
been willing to repeal this Ordinance, it would have availed 



8. This man, claimed as a slave, was said to have beem a linguist and con- 
spicuous for his general intelligence; and that it was he who led Major Dade 
into the disastrous ambush. See Exiles of Florida, p. 106. 



[67] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the slave-holders little, for the people who were settling in 
the West positively refused to permit slavery, as had been 
evidenced by the defeat of the attempt on the part of William 
Henry Harrison to introduce the institution among them. In 
the beginning the slave-holding and non-slave-holding sec- 
tions had started out practically even both as to population 
and wealth, but now after a period of only fifty years the non- 
slave-holding section had trebled the South in both popula- 
tion and wealth ; even those born in the South were rapidly 
emigrating, while foreign immigration eschewed that section 
altogether. 9 Efforts made to secure a foothold for slavery in 
connection with the acquisition of new territory had been 
anything but encouraging. When Louisiana was purchased 
there was comparatively only a small portion of the territory 
in which slavery was permitted ; slavery spread over the 
whole of Florida it is true, but when this state, poor and bar- 
ren, was acquired, the great manufacturing State of Maine 
came in to more than offset it. When we seized Texas, an- 
other barren waste, for the benefit of slavery, there came 
with it California and Oregon with their rich mines, into 
which slavery could not enter. An Ostend Manifesto had 
failed to secure Cuba ; a Walker's Expedition had met with 
unmerciful disaster in Central America. These defeats ren- 
dered the South desperate and the only possible hope left to 
them was in the direction of making a more determined stand 
for the control of more of the territory which had been ac- 
quired for the Union through their ingenious manipulations. 
The fair and square issue, therefore, as to whether slavery 
should be extended in the United States was faced with a 
dogged determination to fight it out. The slave power, being 
in control of the governmental machinery, was already in po- 
sition to test the question as to whether there was power in 
the national government to compel non-slave-holding states 
and communities to recognize the institution in their laws so 
as to afford slave-holders the' same protection in the enjoy- 
ment of slave service in other parts of the country as in the 



9. For statistical proof of these facts see speech of Hon. Charles S«mner, 
United States Senate, June 4, 1860. 

[68] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

South. And while this issue dissolved the Whig party, it 
clarified the atmosphere by sectionalizing the country. When 
the Thirty-first Congress met in 1849-50, each section re- 
garded the other as an hostile camp. The avowed supporters 
of slavery could no longer ride rough-shod over the anti- 
slavery minority in the House, although few of these minor- 
ity members had been elected on platforms distinctly pledg- 
ing them to oppose slavery. Among these, however, whose 
constituents had exacted of them a pledge in opposition to 
slavery were Messrs. Tuck, of New Hampshire ; Allen, of 
Massachusetts ; King of New York ; Wilmot, of Pennsyl- 
vania ; Root and Giddings, of Ohio ; Julian, of Indiana, and 
Durkee, of Wisconsin. Besides these out-and-out opponents 
of slavery there were many others ready to join the ranks at 
the earliest hint from their constituents. 

One by one these representatives from the North, whether 
Democratic or Whig, who lacked the courage to stand up and 
be counted against slavery, were being relegated to the rear 
and left at home by the voters. The old political parties were 
in sore straits and this was especially the case with the 
Whigs, who had never taken a very decided stand on slavery. 
The Democratic party, which had always been under the con- 
trol of the southern planter barons, had the advantage of hav- 
ing a definite policy and one about which all their forces 
could be rallied. In this desperate situation the best the 
Whigs could offer was a compromise. And so, on January 
29, 1850, Henry Clay, the great W r hig leader, offered a set of 
resolutions, as follows: 1st, That California be admitted into 
the Union without any restrictions as to slavery ; 5th, That it 
is not expedient for the United States to abolish slavery in 
the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland 
and the people of the District of Columbia and without com- 
pensating the owners of slaves in the said district ; 6th, That 
it is expedient to prohibit the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia ; 8th, That Congress has no power over the trade 
between the states but that it should be regulated by the pe- 
culiar laws of the respective states. The second, third and 
fourth resolutions were of minor importance, but the 7th was 

[69] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the last as well as the most fateful fugitive slave law ever 
passed by the American Congress. The whole path of slavery- 
is marked with the whitening political carcasses of statesmen 
and diplomats, but this particular spot is the very valley of 
dry bones ; a great political party went down here into the 
gaping arms of death, into a yawning oblivion. About here 
will ever mope the manes of Webster, muttering in the lan- 
guage of despair: "I made a mistake." Here, Clay, who had 
rather "be right than be President," fell into the political grave 
which he unwittingly dug for his party and which Stephen 
A. Douglas was destined to cover up with his Squatter Sover- 
eignty and then himself fall dead upon it, like a hero in the 
play. These resolutions were referred to a committee of thir- 
teen, of which Mr. Clay was chairman. The committee hav- 
ing elaborated the resolutions into some forty sections, re- 
ported them back May 8th, 1850. This committee was 
composed of seven members from slave and six members 
from free states. 10 Several amendments were offered during 
the consideration of the measure, but all were voted down 
and the bill was passed by the Senate as it came from the 
committee on August 13th, 1850, by a vote of 34 to 18. The 
whole measure was bitterly opposed by the slave holding 
states because they wanted it explicitly provided and under- 
stood that slave holders might take their slaves into any of 
the territories and have the protection of the laws without 
any doubt or question. All of the eighteen negative votes 
came from the South, ten of whose Senators, to wit, from 
Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana and Florida, 
immediately signed a protest which they had read and spread 
upon the records of the Senate. After this famous measure 
was duly passed and signed, it was thought that the trouble- 
some question was now out of the way at least so far as 
national legislation was concerned. But as a matter of fact 
the law simply irritated matters and made the situation more 
acute. Slaves continued to escape to the free states, where, 
as usual, they were enabled to elude their pursuers ; and 



10. Clay, Cass, of Mich.; Daniel S. Young, N. Y.; Jesse D. Wright, Ind.; 
Webster, Samuel S. Phelps, Vt.; James Cooper, Pa.; W. R. King, Ala.; Mason, 
Va.; Downs, W. P. Magnum, N. C; Bell, Tenn.; Berrien, Ga. 

[70] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

when slave hunters appealed to the authorities, they were 
coolly told that no law of Congress could compel men to join 
in the chase after fugitive slaves. 

Indeed all attempts to enforce the fugitive slave law prov- 
ed absolutely futile. People throughout the North felt the 
deepest resentment at what they regarded as an attempt to 
compel them to assist in running down and catching men 
to please slave holders. Mr. Clay and the politicians in gen- 
eral affected to ignore this popular furor as they evidently 
felt and believed that it w r ould all soon blow over. So con- 
fident was Mr. Clay that his famous compromise had settled 
matters, that he peevishly objected when about this time, 
Mr. Chase wanted to offer a resolution touching slavery in 
the territories, and declared "that peace now prevails on the 
question of slavery," and he "trusted that the Senate would 
unhesitatingly set its face against any further disturbance of 
this country." Mr. Clay had hardly taken his seat before 
Mr. Thomas G. Pratt of Maryland, arose for the purpose of 
calling up for consideration a bill providing for penalties, 
etc., to be inflicted on persons found guilty of enticing slaves 
from the District of Columbia. This incident caused no little 
amusement, but Mr. Clay evidently saw in it the tragic fail- 
ure of his labors and the folly of his remarks about the 
question having been settled. And it may be here noticed 
that the two pieces of legislation above all others which 
tend to make the name of Henry Clay famous, were con- 
nected with his endeavors to settle the slavery question by 
compromise, the one occurring at the beginning of his career 11 
and the other at its end. 



11. Missouri Compromise, 1820; Fugitive Slave Law, 1850. 



[71] 



CHAPTER VIII 



The Kansas-Nebraska Troubles — The Repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise — Sumner in the Senate — Douglas and Popular Sov- 
ereignty — Sumner Assaulted by Preston Brooks. 

The troubles and complications that arose in connection 
with the admission into the Union of Kansas and Nebraska 
were unusually full of tragic interest. The subject appears 
to have aroused every feeling involved in party and sectional 
differences and attracted the active participation of the whole 
people. More blood was shed on account of this little terri- 
tory than on account of any other single track of land ever 
acquired by the Union, except Texas. Of course, the primary 
cause of these difficulties was slavery ; it has been reasonably 
claimed, however, that the United States Senate which has 
often exhibited something akin to indifference to the wishes 
of the people, was largely responsible for the Kansas strife. 
Early in 1853, Mr. Giddings reported a bill for the admission 
of these territories, which was passed by the House prac- 
tically without debate. 1 This measure made no mention of 
slavery for the reason that the whole territory was situated 
north of the line 36 degrees and 30 minutes, which itself 
excluded slavery. The Senate, however, unwilling to have 
the states come into the Union without slavery, refused to act 
upon the House Bill and hung the matter up. Early in the 
Thirty-third Congress which assembled in 1854, Mr. Dixon 
of Tennessee, gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill 
repealing the 8th section of the Act admitting Missouri, re- 
ferring to the prohibition of slavery north of the line 36 de- 
grees and 36 minutes, whereupon Mr. Douglas moved to 
recommit the whole subject. The Douglas motion was 
agreed to and for the well known purpose of formally re- 
pealing the Missouri Compromise. In the meantime the 
anti-slavery forces were steadily increasing at both ends of 



1. Giddings, p. 366. 

[72] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the capitol. Sumner, who had just made his appearance in 
the Senate, joined with Giddings of the House and some half 
dozen others in a signed address to the people of the nation 
calling attention to what was being done in the direction 
of the abrogation of the Missouri line, and asking them to 
protest. And the people did protest, the people of the North, 
East and especially of the West. The legislature of several 
states adopted resolutions denouncing the United States 
Senate for its attitude on this question in the most vigorous 
and outspoken language while that body was pilloried by 
many of the northern newspapers. Three thousand and thirty 
clergymen of all denominations throughout New England 
sent to Congress their "Solemn protest against the perpetra- 
tion of this national crime of extending slavery into territory 
once free by the voice of the nation. 2 But none of these things 
moved the Senate which could hear only the voice of its 
master — the slave power operating through the medium of 
the Democratic party. It had been determined and decreed 
that the Missouri line should be abolished by the adoption of 
the Douglas' Popular Sovereignty (better known as "Squatter 
Sovereignty") measure. Mr. Douglas doubtless thought he 
had made a clever move in this matter, but it turned out to 
be the most colossal mistake that ever happened in the career 
of that famous man, known the country over as the "Little 
Giant." When he moved to recommit the Dixon proposition 
just referred to, he moved to commit not only his own name 
to oblivion but that of the political party made famous by the 
names of men like Webster, Clay and his own. Mr. Douglas 
defended himself with characteristic cleverness against the 
charge of being responsible for all the odium attached to the 
doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty." 3 It was well known, he 
said, that anything like the existence of a Missouri line had 
been for years ignored; in fact, had never been recognized; 
that the supposed settlement under the Missouri Compro- 
mise had settled nothing; that slave-holders traveled unchal- 
lenged and often resided unmolested with their slaves in the 



2. Giddings, p. 367. 

3. Constitutional and Party Questions, p. 

1731 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

North and elsewhere, and most important of all, the slave 
power showed its contempt for this supposed settlement by 
exerting every possible effort to prevent the organization and 
settlement of the territories, and that he had simply at- 
tempted to counteract, if not to conciliate, the opposition by 
bringing forward his Popular Sovereignty scheme which he 
induced Congress to accept. There is no denying the truth of 
Mr. Douglas' claims. The fact that the Dred Scott case was 
not decided for more than a year after this time was not be- 
cause of a lack of material for a similar contest years before 
but because it was well known that such a contest would 
have been a hopeless expenditure of energy and a wanton 
waste of money. Notwithstanding the fact that settlers were 
rilling up the West, they could get no assistance from Con- 
gress, not even to the extent of being allowed to organize local 
governments. If Mr. Douglas, being a western man, could 
see no other way of getting the western territories organ- 
ized except by yielding to the demands of the South, it was 
quite natural that he should seek a pretext, though it may be 
doubted whether he would have taken the responsibility of 
obliterating the Missouri line had he been able to foresee the 
bloody conflict impending. The scene of action and the storm 
center was now immediately transferred from Washington 
to Kansas. Under the Douglas plan the settlers were to elect 
whether or not they would permit slavery among them. But 
it seems to have been thought that the actual and bona fide 
settlers might not know how to decide properly ; at all events 
the temptation to outside parties to determine this moment- 
ous question for the settlers seemed irresistible. 

Frontier life was too harsh and uninviting to attract the 
easy-going southerner to the West as a permanent settler. 
But people were pouring into the West from the East and 
especially from New England, all of whom were bitterly op- 
posed to slavery. Under the Popular Sovereignty scheme of 
Senator Douglas, it was certain that slavery would be ex- 
cluded in the organization of the territory by an overwhelm- 
ing vote should the question be referred to the bona fide set- 
tlers. But the slave power did not wish any such thing to 

[74] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

happen if it could be prevented by either fair or foul means. 
Hordes of poor whites and reckless adventurers were induced 
to cross over from Missouri into Kansas, terrorize and if 
necessary murder the bona fide settlers and to "squat" there 
long enough to vote slavery into the territory. These organ- 
ized bands of "Border Ruffians," as they were called, at first 
had everything their own way as the settlers were unorgan- 
ized and generally scattered, thereby becoming easy victims 
of the torch and dagger of these thugs. Nearly every settler 
within reach of the Missouri boundary had his crops de- 
stroyed, his barns and storehouses, and even his dwelling 
burned; and these savage raiders would be merrier still when- 
ever they could add the life of an anti-slavery settler to the 
list of casualties. 4 Reports of these barbarities naturally 
aroused the people of the East whence these settlers had 
come. For the more speedy relief of the Kansas sufferers, an 
Immigrant Aid Society was formed in New England, the ob- 
ject and purpose of which was to encourage men to go to the 
assistance of the Kansas farmers in their struggles with the 
border raiders. Violent conflicts between the Missouri raiders 
and the Kansas homesteaders were of almost daily occur- 
rence. It was in one of these battles that John Brown first 
distinguished himself as a militant Abolitionist. Brown had 
several sons who had established themselves in this disturbed 
section. These young men had accumulated considerable 
property, all of which had been taken away or destroyed by 
the raiders. Few of these farmers were supplied with fire-arms 
or other defensive weapons. Relatives and friends in the 
East undertook to ship weapons to these farmers, but such 
efforts failed owing to the fact that all such supplies and ma- 
terials were intercepted and confiscated by the enemy on the 
Missouri border. After having made several futile attempts 
to equip his sons, John Brown packed several cases of arms, 
put them on the train as baggage and took them to Kansas 
himself. He made a careful distribution of his arms and 
calmly awaited the next invasion. He did not have to wait 
long, because the time was drawing near when delegates 



4. Amer. Conf., Vol. I, p. 235; Garrison, Vol. Ill, p. 417. 

[75] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

were to be chosen who were to sit in the convention called 
to formulate a constitution for the state to be voted on later 
by the citizens, and it was important that the Missourians 
should keep actively at their work of terrifying and murder- 
ing these settlers from the East to keep them from control- 
ing the convention. Of course these raiders never desired or 
expected to be citizens of Kansas and only crossed the border 
from Missouri for the purpose of "squatting" or camping in 
Kansas long enough to saddle on the state a pro-slavery con- 
stitution to be proclaimed as the work of the actual settlers. 
It was this well-known purpose and attitude of the Mis- 
sourians living along or near the border of Kansas that 
caused the Popular Sovereignty measure of Senator Douglas 
to become stigmatized as "Squatter Sovereignty" and to be- 
come damned to fame as such. These border ruffians, as they 
were aptly called, in pushing their campaign, soon encoun- 
tered old John Brown and his men, at Osawatomie. Few of 
these Missourians ever got back to their homes ; few ever 
reached the border. After this decided victory, Brown, hav- 
ing every reason to apprehend that the raiders might be re- 
inforced by the whole State of Missouri and perhaps by Fed- 
eral troops, slipped out of the state by way of Canada, after 
having made further reprisals on the Missourians by gather- 
ing up and carrying off with him some of their slaves. Brown, 
by using various aliases and disguises, finally got back to 
New England, where he at once began to make preparations 
for his famous raid at Harper's Ferry, then a town of Vir- 
ginia, which he executed a few years later. To say that John 
Brown and his men caused the greatest excitement in Kansas 
is to put it mildly ; they created a sensation throughout the 
nation. No peaceful farmer in Kansas ever dreaded or had 
cause to dread the appearance of a band of hostile In- 
dians half so much as they did these Missouri raiders, who 
knew the language, the strength and weakness, the habits 
and connections of the settlers ; they knew how, when and 
where to strike to accomplish the most harm and to bring on 
the greatest amount of distress. Nor did this annihilation of 
this band at Osawatomie by John Brown deter others from 

[76] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

coming over and taking forcible possession of the polls on 
the day of the election of delegates to the constitutional con- 
vention and seeing to it that only men were returned as 
elected who favored a pro-slavery constitution. These "squat- 
ters," supplemented by special troops of raiders, returned 
large numbers of votes from precincts where it was known 
that hardly a handful of votes had been cast and even from 
places where no polls had ever been opened. Delegates thus 
"elected" met and formed a so-called constitution, known as 
the Lecompton Constitution, which, of course, made ample 
provision for slavery. This was forthwith submitted to and 
was "ratified" by this same lawless element and had it re- 
ported as the work of "the people of Kansas." And this re- 
port had behind it the support of President Pierce and his ad- 
ministration as well as that of the entire Democratic press. 
Were it not for the actual tragedy involved, the whole thing 
might be passed over as a huge joke. And so it seems to have 
been regarded by the actual settlers who, in total disregard 
of the whole proceeding, called a convention of their own and 
formulated a constitution excluding slavery, which was rati- 
fied practically by a unanimous vote. 5 The contest was thus 
thrown back into Congress for a determination as to which 
instrument really emanted from the people of Kansas. The 
anti-slavery forces in Congress were sufficiently strong to re- 
sist with effect and in this contest they won after a protracted 
struggle. 6 The slave-holding interests are generally held re- 
sponsible for the great loss of life and property incident to 
the Kansas-Nebraska troubles. Mr. Douglas, however, in 
speaking of the matter, in his "Constitutional and Party 
Questions," refers to the Immigrant Aid Societies of New 
England with great bitterness, and lays a large share of the 
responsibility at their door. It is admitted , however, that 
those who went to Kansas from the East did so with a bona 
fide intention of settling, while the forays from Missouri 
were known to have been. gotten up for the sole purpose of 
terrorizing these settlers in the hope of forcing them to ac- 
cept slavery. 

5. Amer. Conflict I, p. 241 . 

6 Unable to come in without slavery, Kansas remained out ot the Union 
until Feb. 19, 1861— Long's Hist. Ren. V rty, p. S3. 

\77] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

The Douglas measure was, as a whole, pro-slavery. "The 
three things," said he, "for which the bill was offered were: 
First, that all questions arising out of slavery should be set- 
tled by the people of the territories in which they were 
raised; second, that cases involving the title to slaves or per- 
sonal freedom, should be appealed from local tribunals to the 
Supreme Court ; third, that the fugitive slave law should 
apply to the territories." The remaining fragments of the 
Whig party in both Houses of Congress combined with the 
Democrats to pass the Douglas bill, the vote in the Senate 
having been 37 to 14 (March 3, 1854), and in the House 113 to 
100 (May 24, 1854), while the Free Soilers were unanimous 
in their opposition. 

At the opening of the Thirty-fourth Congress (1855), Mr. 
Henry M. Fuller, a representative from Pennsylvania, offered 
a resolution of the following tenor: "Resolved, that a useless 
and factious agitation of the slavery question either in or out 
of Congress is unwise, unjust to a portion of the American 
people and injurious to the country and should be discon- 
tinued," whereupon Mr. James Meacham, of Vermont, of- 
fered the following as a substitute, which was adopted 108 to 
93 : "Resolved, That in the opinion of the House, the repeal 
of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north 
of the line of 36 degrees and 30 minutes, was an example of 
a useless and factious agitation of the slavery question, both 
in and out of Congress, which was unwise and unjust to a 
portion of the American people." 

Charles Sumner had hardly been in the Senate a year when 
he took occasion to make one of his great speeches against 
slavery in connection with the Kansas discussion, and on ac- 
count of some pointed references to South Carolina, Preston 
Brooks, a Representative from that state, committed a cow- 
ardly and brutal assault upon Mr. Sumner while he sat alone 
in the Senate Chamber. In consequence of this assault Mr. 
Sumner was absent from his seat for about four years. Thus 
slavery continued to show itself to be the most unfortunate 
of human institutions, as it undoubtedly tends to transform 
men into chattels and brutes on the one hand, and tyrants 

and brutes on the other. 

[78] 



CHAPTER IX 



The Organization of the Republican Party — The Nomination of 
Fremont and Dayton — Exciting Campaign and Election of 
Buchanan — The Candidates, Platforms and Conventions of 
1860 — Dred Scott Decision — John Brown's Raid — Preparation 
for Rebellion in Anticipation of Lincoln's Election — Northern 
Newspapers Encourage South to Rebel — The Speakership Con- 
test — Republicans Hedge — Jeff Davis Sets Forth Position of 
the South — Revival of Foreign Slave Trade Just Before War. 

It took the Whig party just about ten years to die, begin- 
ning with the admission of Texas, in 1845, and ending with 
the Kansas troubles. The admission of Texas, the fugitive 
slave law of 1850, and the Lecompton Constitution, which was 
attempted to be forced upon Kansas, are the three signal in- 
cidents which contributed principally to the immediate or- 
ganization of the Republican party. This party was formed 
by a combination of three distinct sets of men. First, there 
were those whose sentiments and utterances had been for 
years opposed to slavery, chief among whom were Sumner, 
Chase, Julian, Wilmot, Stevens and the veteran Giddings, who 
for twenty years before the organization of the Republican 
party, had led a forlorn hope in Congress against the forces 
of slavery; perhaps F. P. Blair and Preston King, both of 
whom, like Chase, had been Democrats, properly belong in 
this class ; a second class coming almost exclusively from the 
Whigs, was composed of such men as Lincoln, Greeley and 
Seward, who were said to have been driven out of their party 
by the measure of 1850. The third and last element of great 
men to unite in the promotion of the Republican party, were 
the War Democrats, such as Gen. B. F. Butler, Generals Mc- 
Clellan, Logan and Sickles. Andrew Johnson also belongs in 
this class. The most of these men returned to the Democratic 
party at the close of the war or during reconstruction. These 
several elements entered the organization in the order named. 
The party adopted its name at a convention held at Jackson, 
Mich., July 6, 1854, and within one year after its organization 
it carried fifteen states and elected eleven Senators. 1 



1. "The Liberator" 25: 106. 

[79] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

For years the people of the non-slave holding states had 
been looking to the Whig party for protection of their inter- 
ests against the aggressions of slavery, and for years they 
had been betrayed. It was known that the South was a po- 
litical unit and that a large part of the North was in sympathy 
with them, while the rest of the northerners were indifferent. 
The Whig leaders, therefore, had always been willing to 
make terms with the South. Indeed, the Democrats and 
Whigs of the South had always been together on the slavery 
question while the two parties in the North were divided ; the 
northern Democrats supported their southern brethren, while 
the northern Whigs had either to go along with the southern 
wing of the party or be left in a hopeless minority. Respon- 
sibility for the growth and spread of slavery rests largely 
with the North. So obsequious did northern politicians be- 
come that it was derisively said of them that whenever they 
wanted to make a political speech they would turn their faces 
southward; and on every proposition that came up, however 
vital it was to the interests of their constituents they 
seem to have felt that they had done their full duty when 
a compromise was affected though the main points might be 
sacrificed. When the South demanded Texas for the benefit 
of slavery through the Democratic party organization, and the 
rest of the country protested and protested with the most 
earnest vigor, the Whig party pretended to represent the 
anti-Texas sentiment and was so brazenly loud in such pre- 
tensions that the people put them in power through the elec- 
tion of Harrison and Tyler. But as soon as they got control 
of the government, without hesitation, shame or compunction, 
they brazenly betrayed their trust without even so much as 
a compromise on the Texas question. When the South de- 
manded the unrestricted extension of slavery, and the rest 
of the country sought to unite and exert their opposition 
through the medium of the Whig party, they were given the 
Compromise Act of 1850, together with an odious and ill- 
fated fugitive slave law. When the South (always and ever 
working through its Democratic party) demanded the nullifi- 
cation of the Missouri line in order that slavery might be car- 

[80] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

riecl into Kansas and Nebraska, and the rest of the country 
protested and sought to unite and direct their protest through 
the medium of the Whig party, that party gave them "Squat- 
ter Sovereignty." And so the country after many trials and 
betrayals repudiated the Whig party; and so the Republican 
party, like the fabled Greek god, was born full grown. Be- 
sides, the great Whig leaders like Webster and Clay were now 
dead. Had they survived, those of the North would have 
doubtless joined the new party and Webster would have 
known where to go for political shelter from the storm of 
disgust and indignation that was beating down upon the 
heads of the Whigs ; for he would have seen that the people, 
thoroughly tired of evasion and equivocation, were now ter- 
ribly in earnest against the extension of slavery, not so much 
because of any humanitarian interest in the Negro or his 
cause, but because they saw how slavery had blighted the 
South by robbing labor of its dignity and other rewards and 
knew that the same fate awaited the yeomanry of the North 
should the institution be allowed to pollute their atmosphere. 
They did not love the Negro or his cause so much but they 
hated slavery and its influence more. 

Fremont and Dayton were nominated at Philadelphia on 
June 17, 1856, by men solemnly pledged to the restriction of 
slavery under the name of the Republican party and with the 
battle cry of "Free Soil, Free Speech, Freemen and Fremont," 
the new party entered upon a campaign never to be forgotten. 
Fremont and Dayton carried New York by a plurality of some 
eighty thousand, besides carrying all of New England, Ohio, 
Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, giving them in all one hun- 
dred and fourteen votes in the electoral college. The popular 
vote was as follows: Buchanan (Democrat), 1,838,169; Fre- 
mont (Republican), 1,341,264; Fillmore (Whig), 874,534. 

The South clearly saw in the rise of the Republican party 
a determination on the part of the non-slave holding states to 
exercise all their reserved powers against the further en- 
croachments of slavery and to do so without apologizing and 
with the consciousness of superior strength. All efforts to 
make peace were therefore discountenanced by the slave- 

[81] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

holders, who now began openly to encourage a widening of 
the breach between the two sections and to prepare for the 
consequences. While Congress itself practically marked time 
without making much history on the slavery question during 
the period immediately following the election of Buchanan, 
southern statesmen outside of Congress were busily prepar- 
ing for rebellion. There also happened certain events like the 
Dred Scott Decision and the raid of John Brown that kept 
the anti-slavery forces keyed up to the highest tension. 

The Democratic Convention, which met at Charleston in 
1860 gave unmistakable evidence of the fact that the South 
intended to have either slavery extension or secession. On 
account of their inability to agree on a platform, the conven- 
tion was forced to adjourn without nominating any candi- 
dates. There were two instruments presented, one by Mr. 
Avery representing a majority of both the platform commit- 
tee and the assembled delegates, but a minority of the elect- 
ors, and another reported by a minority of the committee but 
representing 179 of the 299 electoral votes. Finally a plat- 
form which confirmed the Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive 
Slave Law, the Ostend Manifesto and Popular Sovereignty, 
was worked out and presented. The whole northern wing of 
the party agreed to swallow all of this, but the southern con- 
tingent rebelled. The southern delegates had been pledged 
to vote against Popular Sovereignty. The defeat of slavery 
in Kansas in spite of fraud and stuffed ballot boxes was suf- 
ficient to convince the slave power that this plank was too 
weak to sustain the ponderous weight of slavery. The plank 
in the Avery platform for which they contended was: "That 
the government of the territories organized by Congress is 
provisional and temporary, and that during its existence all 
citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle 
with their slave property in the territories without their 
rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or im- 
paired by Congressional or territorial legislation." The south- 
ern delegates, having been pledged to stand for such a decla- 
ration in the Democratic platform, could accept nothing less. 
L. P. Walker, therefore, withdrew his Alabama delegation 

[82] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

from the convention which was followed by the withdrawal 
of all the southern delegates. 2 Butler, then avowing that he 
disagreed with both platforms as reported, withdrew his 
Massachusetts delegation ; and so amid the wildest excite- 
ment, the convention broke up to meet at Baltimore June 18. 
Before the convention reassembled a majority of the seceders 
met and agreed upon the original Avery Platform ; still when 
they came together at Baltimore, the wild scenes witnessed 
at Charleston were repeated and a large number of the dele- 
gates again withdrew, among them being those from Massa- 
chusetts, under the leadership of Butler, who left, declaring 
that he "would not sit in a convention where the African 
slave trade which had been made piracy by the laws of his 
country, was openly advocated. 3 

While the Democrats were shaking out of their party those 
who were unwilling to make slavery national, the Whig 
party, once so prosperous and so proud under the leadership 
of its Webster and Clay, met at Baltimore on May 19, under 
the name and style of Constitutional American party, and 
nominated Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for President, 
and John Bell, of Tennessee, for Vice-President. Though Mr. 
Everett was an able and scholarly man, his party was at that 
time dead. Even the name "Whig" had dropped out of the 
lexicon of American politics except as that of a party that 
used to be. 

It was an intrepid body that met at Chicago on May 16, 
1860, composing the second national convention of the Re- 
publican party. Among other things for which this gathering 
was noted was the large number of men before that time un- 
known who flashed into lasting prominence from the hour of 
their appearance at that convention. A majority of these dele- 
gates were young men ; and they neither sought to dodge any 
issue nor to compromise any principle, as had been the cus- 
tom with their fathers, nor did they sugar-coat their words. 
With a hurrah they brought out a platform which emphati- 



2. Amer. Conflict, I, p. 312; Stanwood, 1860. 

3. Gaulden, of Georgia, in his speech before the convention, said that the 
slave trader was the true Union man and that the African slave catchers were 
the best missionaries. Amer. Conflict, I, p. 316. 



[83] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

cally declared against any extension of slavery and had such 
a determined ring on the whole as to make it about 4 as dis- 
tasteful to the slave power as an out-and-out demand for im- 
mediate emancipation would have been. A limitless amount of 
campaign material was furnished the Republicans by the 
Dred Scott Decision, in which Judge Taney evidently aimed 
to strengthen the fugitive slave law of 1850 and to settle the 
Kansas question. It can hardly be denied that this decision 
was in accord with the Democratic party on those questions 
as well as the public sentiment that had prevailed before that 
time. The able jurist went too far when, speaking generally, 
he said that it was regarded as an axiom in law and morals 
that black men had no rights that white men were bound to 
respect. The judge was thought to have made an error 
equally grave when he asserted that black men could not be 
regarded as citizens because none exercised the privileges of 
citizenship. These errors would not have been so apparent 
had the laws of Massachusetts, for instance, and those of all 
the other states, been similar to those of Maryland, Mr. 
Taney's home state. In some of the states of the Union 
colored people have always had some protection under both 
the moral and civil law. Even under the revised constitutions 
which the slave power caused to be adopted by most of the 
states, the privilege of voting, some times regarded as the 
highest prerogative of citizenship, was never taken away by 
all the states. Even in Ohio, where many pretensions were 
made to conform to the mandate of the South so to revise the 
laws as to reduce the slaves and free colored people to as 
nearly the same plane as possible, all persons having as much 
as "seven-eighths" white blood could still vote. So Judge 
Taney was bitterly scored and the errors into which he had 
fallen were so apparent even to the dullest mind, that his 
effort to help the slave power had quite the reverse effect. 

Another thing that contributed to the excitement of the 
time even more than the Dred Scott Decision, was the raid of 
John Brown at Harper's Ferry in 1859. This raid created a 
sensation throughout the whole country and served greatly 



4. Stanwood, 1860. 

[84] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

to intensify feeling against the institution of slavery. Sena- 
tor Mason, of Virginia, brought the matter to the attention 
of Congress by the introduction of a resolution demanding 
an investigation. This attempt on the part of John Brown 
to free the slaves by use of the arms which he had seized 
from the United States arsenal was thought to have been in- 
defensible as well as untimely and unwise, and Mr. Mason 
thought that if it could be in any way connected with the Re- 
publican party and its supposed Abolitionist following, the 
fact would serve as a good weapon in the hands of the Demo- 
crats and conservatives in the pending campaign. The Re- 
publicans, however, blandly denied responsibility, and by an 
amendment to the measure offered by Senator Trumbull, of 
Illinois, demanding an investigation into the Missouri forays 
and the looting of the arsenals of that state for use against 
the settlers of Kansas, Mr. Mason and his party were put on 
the defensive and the current of the whole proceeding was 
changed. Mr. Trumbull's amendment was voted down, still 
it served its purpose in giving the Republicans a theme for 
discussion without touching the merits of the Harper's Ferry 
raid. In the discussion which took place in connection with 
these measures, much light was thrown on the Kansas 
troubles. While no one undertook to defend John Brown di- 
rectly, many facts were adduced which tended to show that 
his rashness was not altogether devoid of extenuating fea- 
tures. It was shown that one of Brown's sons had been shot 
to death in cold blood in Kansas by one Martin, a preacher; 
and that another one of Brown's sons had been seized, tied 
to the tail of a horse and dragged until he had become a rav- 
ing maniac, and that all their property had been destroyed on 
more than one occasion by raiders from Missouri. These 
things were aired in a manner that entirely diverted attention 
from the subject of Mr. Mason's resolutions, although some 
advantage was taken of the occasion to arraign the Abolition- 
ists and the "Black Republicans." The report of Mr. Mason's 
committee, January 15, 1860, placed the responsibility for the 
Harper's Ferry raid upon the shoulders of John Brown and 
there the matter ended. 

[85] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

The campaign of 1860 was one of suppressed excitement. 
The Fremont campaign, four years before, had effervesced 
with enthusiasm, open, boisterous, loud; but in 1860 every- 
thing seemed to be touched with a sense of responsibility 
quite sublime. The very air seemed laden with awful fore- 
bodings. The South assumed an air of stolid indifference as 
to the election of its candidates that made the Republicans 
dread their own success ; for it was well known for a year 
previous to the election that Lincoln would be elected and 
that the South in that event would secede from the Union. 
Mr. Floyd, President Buchanan's Secretary of War, had been 
for two years shipping arms from arsenals in the North to 
southern arsenals. 5 Besides this, certain northern newspapers 
had been doing all in their power to encourage the South to 
rebel. 6 These journals declared that if the North should at- 
tempt to prosecute war against the South, there would be "a 
fire kindled in their (the North's) rear as well as in the 
front ;" that northern capitalists had large sums invested in 
southern securities which, under no circumstances, would 
they see destroyed or impaired in the prosecution of a useless 
Abolitionist War. Besides, much of such encouraging talk of 
this kind on the part of northern men who, in the end turned 
against the South or maintained an unfriendly silence, the 
question as to the right of a state to secede from the Union 
had never been settled. The political school of Jefferson had 
always tended to exalt the state above the nation. New Eng- 
land was supposed to have claimed the right of secession in 
1812; Calhoun boldly asserted it in 1832; some of the most 
famous Abolitionists of the East were preaching this very 
doctrine at this time, declaring that slavery was maintained 
in the South by reason of the protection afforded by the na- 
tion's arms. 7 In view of the foregoing facts and the alluring 



5. Amer. Conflict, I, p. 408. 

6. A Democratic mass-meeting, held in Philadelphia, January 16, 1861, just 
after Davis was elected President of the Confederacy resolved: "That if the 
South should separate from the Union, Pennsylvania's sympathy will be with 
our brethren of the South whose wrongs we feel as our own." — Long's Hist. 
Rep. Party, p. 53; ex-Governor Rodman P. Price, of New Jersey, in a letter to 
M. F. Maury, of Fredericksburg, Va., in the spring of '61, said that "New 
Jersey would go with the South from every wise, prudential and patriotic con- 
sideration." — Ibid., p. 57; for specimen editorials of the Albany (N.Y.) Argus,. 
New York Herald and Boston Desp-t^h, v'-'e Amer Conflict, pp. 355 and 3%. 

7. Vide Life of Garrison, also Austin's Wendell Phillips. 

[86] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

possibility of the establishment of a new confederacy to be 
received into the kingdom of nations, that might adhere to 
such practices as should be considered to be to its advantage, 
and whose commercial fleets, flying the "Stars and Bars" 
might forever plough the ocean between the free-trade ports 
of Charleston and Liverpool, the South had every temptation 
to secede in 1861. And so, as soon as the election of Lincoln 
was announced, Governor Gist, of South Carolina, recom- 
mended to the legislature of his state the necessity of taking 
the proper steps for withdrawal from the Union. The critical 
situation put the now dominant party on the defensive lest 
it should seem to be driving the South out of the Union. 
That the Republican party assumed this guarded attitude was 
clearly shown in the contest for Speaker of the House in 
1860. Indeed, as late as March 2, 1861, both Houses adopted 
a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment denying 
to Congress the power to abolish slavery. 8 The Speakership 
contest afforded a splendid opportunity for a line-up of the 
members of the House. Support of Sherman, the Republican 
candidate, in the eyes of the South, meant hostility to slavery, 
while support of Bocock, of Virginia, meant the reverse. 
Secession was imminent and the Democrats were charging 
the Republicans with responsibility ; they were charged with 
having a friendly interest in the slaves and with affiliation 
with the Abolitionists, all of which the Republican leaders 
denied. When John Sherman, the Republican candidate for 
Speaker, who was being arraigned by the Democrats on ac- 
count of his supposed anti-slavery proclivities in general and 
particularly his alleged indorsement of a pamphlet then re- 
cently published 9 advocating the boycotting of the products 
of slave labor by the people of the North, arose and said: 
"Allow me to say once for all (I have said it five times on 
this floor) that I am opposed to any interference by the 
people of other states with the relation of master and slave 
in the slave states," there was applause in the Hall and in the 
galleries and not a word of protest. 10 Notwithstanding the 



8. Long's Hist. Rep. Party, p. 67. 

9. "The Impending Crisis," by Helper. 

10. Cong. Globe, First Session Thirty-sixth Congress, p. 21. 



[87] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

fact that such sentiments were echoed and re-echoed about 
the Halls of Congress, the Republican party as a whole stead- 
fastly adhered to its policy of slavery restriction. Soon after 
this contest was settled by the election of a compromise can- 
didate as Speaker and the House was organized, Mr. Jeffer- 
son Davis introduced in the Senate February 2, 1860, a set of 
resolutions setting forth the contentions of the South as fol- 
lows : "First, that in the adoption of the Federal Constitution 
the states acted severally and free, as independent sovereign- 
ties delegating a portion of their power to be exercised by the 
Federal Government for the increased security of each 
against dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and that any 
intermeddling by any one or more of the states, or by a 
combination of their citizens with the domestic institutions 
of the others on any pretext, whether political or religious, 
with a view to their disturbance or subversion is a violation 
of the Constitution ; second, that Negro slavery as it exists in 
fifteen states of this Union composes an important portion 
of their domestic institutions * * * * and that no change 
of feeling on the part of non-slave holding states can justify 
them or their citizens in any systematic attack with a view 
to its overthrow; fourth, that neither Congress nor a terri- 
torial legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation 
of an indirect or unfriendly nature, possesses power to im- 
pair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United 
States to take his slave property into the common territories, 
but it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect them; 
fifth, that the provisions of the Constitution for the rendition 
of fugitives from service or labor, without the adoption of 
which the Union could not have been formed, and the laws of 
1793 and 1850 are similar which were enacted to secure its 
execution, bear the impress of seventy years' sanction of the 
highest judicial authority * * * * and the acts of state 
legislatures to defeat it, are hostile in character * * * * 
and will lead the injured states by such breach of the compact 
to exercise their judgment as to the proper mode of redress." 
It would be hard to find a set of resolutions more expres- 
sive of the principles of any party than these, or in truth, a 

[88] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

more explicit statement of any case. They defend slavery 
and the slave laws, uphold the doctrine of State Rights, spurn 
Squatter Sovereignty and broadly hint at secession. These 
were the cardinal principles for which the South contended 
and stubbornly struggled to the last. Senator Clark, of New 
Hampshire, addressing himself to these resolutions on Feb- 
ruary 20, 1860, earnestly defended the powers of Congress to 
legislate with regard to the territories and to slavery. He 
declared that the greed of the Democracy had brought forth 
the Republican party which stigmatized slavery as "a relic of 
barbarism" which it intended to confine to its present limits 
where it shall become unprofitable and be smothered out. "To 
prevent the extension of slavery in the territories," said he, 
"is the cardinal object of the Republican party, but in saying 
this I deny that it attempts or seeks to attempt by any action 
of the general government, to interfere with it in the states 
where it exists, but they will hold it up and discuss it as a 
moral, social and political evil." At this time Senator Andrew 
Johnson was addressing the Senate on Mr. Mason's Harper's 
Ferry resolutions. Replying to Senator Trumbull, who had 
taken as the text of his speech the resolution in the Repub- 
lican platform : "That with our Republican fathers, we hold 
that all men are born free and equal, and that it is the primary 
object and ulterior design of the government to grant these," 
etc., Senator Johnson asked: "Is there a man throughout the 
length and breadth of this Republic who believes for one in- 
stant that when Jefferson penned these lines he had in mind 
the Negro population." Illinois, Senator Trumbull's state, had 
at this time a constitution acknowledging the equality and 
liberty of all, still it was well known that colored people 
were proscribed and discriminated against in the admin- 
istration of the laws. Mr. Johnson called attention to this 
fact and scored against Mr. Trumbull, who was compelled to 
acknowledge that he favored deportation of the freedmen. 
There was one man in the Senate, however, who could never 
be budged from his position, and that was Senator Sumner. 
While Senators Johnson and Trumbull were battling, with 
the latter on the defensive, Mr. Sumner was preparing one of 

[89] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

his sweeping speeches which he delivered a few days later in 
which he held up not only slavery but slave-holders as well to 
the execration of mankind, declaring that "slave-holders are 
base, false and heedless of justice; that there is no vileness 
of dishonesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly 
involved in the support of an institution which begins by 
changing man, created in the image of God, into a chattel 
and sweeps little children away to the auction block." Thad- 
deus Stevens, the leader of the Republican forces in the 
House, in a speech in defense of the powers of the govern- 
ment to regulate slavery in the territories, etc., delivered 
about this time, summed up the situation as follows : "The 
right of abolition is a question of expediency about which 
Republicans differ, but whenever it can be done safely and 
justly, it is the intention of the Republican party to do it." 
Such remarks by intrepid leaders like Sumner and Stevens 
gave little assurance to the South that the slavery question 
would be adjusted to the satisfaction of the slave power. 

It having come to the knowledge of Congress that New 
Mexico, where slavery had been prohibited by Congress, had 
passed numerous slave laws, Mr. John A. Bingham, on Feb- 
ruary 16, introduced in the House a bill disapproving and de- 
claring void all laws and acts or parts thereof passed by the 
Legislature of New Mexico in any manner countenancing slav- 
ery in that territory. The passage of this measure, May 10, 
1860, by a vote of 97 to 90, shows the strength of the Republi- 
cans in the House at that time. The situation in the Senate, 
however, was far different ; that body adopted the Davis 
resolutions before referred to, one by one, without an amend- 
ment though every Republican voted in the negative. 

There appears to have been a brisk revival of the African 
slave trade just prior to I860. 11 At all events it was deemed 
necessary to pass a law in May of that year amending the Act 
of March 3, 1819, prohibiting the slave trade and giving the 
President specific power and authority to arrange with com- 
petent parties for the return to Africa of such slaves as might 



11. In Gaulding's speech before the Baltimore Convention before referred to, 
he spoke of their being in the South "Africans, fresh from Africa," 3nd de- 
scribed them as "the noblest Romans of them all." 

[90] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

be seized on ships engaged in the trade. It was officially re- 
ported that a thousand Negroes were brought from Africa to 
the coast of Florida in I860 12 and it was this incident that in- 
spired the introduction of the above-mentioned measure for 
the enforcement of which Congress appropriated two and 
one-half million dollars. 13 This was among the last Acts 
passed at this session of Congress which soon afterward ad- 
journed when its members returned home with hearts beating 
fast with anticipation while the clouds were gathering thick 
and dark in all our sky and fate was forging bolts of thunder. 

12. Vide Special message of President Buchanan, May 21, 1840 

13. Globe First Session Thirty sixth Congress, p. 2640. 



[91] 



CHAPTER X 



The First Republican House of Representatives — Members Confused 
and Excited — Lincoln Assume- Reins — His Inaugural Address 
— Opposed to Interference with Slavery — Sketch of Lincoln's 
Public Career up to the Time of His Election — Not an Aboli- 
tionist — Secession and Beginning of the Civil War. 

In I860 the Republicans elected all their candidates because 
the opponents of slavery had at last found an organization 
through which they could effectively act and because the 
slave power being as thoroughly tired of compromises and 
as much disgusted with make-shifts as anybody else, did not 
care. Indeed, the South, instead of opposing the candidates of 
the Republican party, deemed that the time and energy could 
be more profitably spent in making final preparation for leav- 
ing the Union. The slavery question, however, was about the 
only issue before the people at this election. Well-defined, 
clear-cut and stripped of qualifications, the question was: 
Shall slave-holders be permitted to carry their institution of 
slavery into territory where the laws of the nation had ex- 
pressly prohibited it. The time for abstract lectures and 
learned dissertations by the select few had past. The issue 
had been reduced to its lowest terms and simplest form where 
a catagorical answer had to be given by the common people. 
And on this issue the Republicans were given a majority in 
both Houses of Congress and put in control of the govern- 
ment, but the possession of this power at first had the effect 
of frightening rather than elating them. And when we con- 
sider the responsibility thus suddenly thrust upon a lot of 
men, a large majority of whom were new and inexperienced 
in matters of legislation and who were immediately called 
upon to face the gravest legislative problems of their age, it 
can be readily understood how fearfully confused they were 
and how much confused they were in their fear. But this 
congressional confusion was only a reflection of the general 
confusion and turmoil throughout the country, for everybody 

[92] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

felt and knew that a great crisis impended. Public spirit was 
at fever heat and those who had not been entrusted with au- 
thority as individuals or as organizations, assumed to advise 
the constituted authorities. Foremost among this latter class 
might be mentioned the Peace Convention, hastily called 
together by pacifists to consider ways and means of prevent- 
ing civil war. This conclave was attended by delegates from 
twenty-one states, who formulated their whereases and re- 
solves in the usual manner, to the usual extent and with the 
usual result of accomplishing nothing else. On the other 
hand, there were innumerable propositions presented before 
Congress. There were proposals to amend the Constitution 
so as to provide for an indelible Missouri line of 36 degrees 
and 30 minutes; resolutions to the effect that Congress had 
power to legislate on the slavery question in regard to the 
territories and resolutions declaring that there was no such 
power; in short, there was a regular jumble or hotch-potch 
of resolutions. There was even a formal proposition demand- 
ing that the Federal Government should recognize and pro- 
tect slavery in all the territories and in the states where it 
then existed. All of these matters were referred in the 
Senate to a special committee of thirteen and in the House 
to a similar committee of thirty-three. To these committees 
was also referred the report of the Peace Convention just 
mentioned. After much labor on the part of these committees 
a proposition was favorably reported which, among other 
things, provided as follows : That the Constitution should be 
amended so as to provide for the perpetuation of slavery 
south of the Missouri line ; that no territory should be ac- 
quired without the concurrence of a majority of the Senators 
from the slave and free states ; that Congress should be 
denied the power to legislate on the question of slavery ; that 
the Federal Government should pay for all slaves that might 
escape into states whose citizens might refuse to assist in ap- 
prehending and returning such fugitives. Although the Re- 
publicans were in complete control of legislation, the Sena- 
tors and Representatives from the South had not as yet re- 
signed their seats, though their participation in these debates 

[93] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

was with a stolid indifference as to the result. The South had 
plainly gone too far in the direction of secession to recede; 
still it was desired that it should seem that they were being 
driven out of the Union. In the meantime the House Commit- 
tee of thirty-three reported another bill providing that any 
amendment looking to the abolition of slavery emanating from 
a slave state should require for its adoption the consent of 
every state in the Union. This bill did not pass, nor did the 
other one first mentioned, but it did give additional impetus 
to the secession movement. Matters outside of Congress 
were in a worse shape, if such a thing were possible, than 
they were in Congress. Foreign capital, fearful and sensitive 
as capital always is, was being withdrawn, indicating a lack 
of confidence abroad, while domestic business was par- 
alyzed. Merchants and traders in the North were divided; 
some of them looked upon Lincoln much as the mob of re- 
spectable citizens had done in the case of Garrison, in 1833, 
as the cause of the dull markets and general stagnation of 
business, while other merchants and practically all of the 
common people charged the trouble to the rapacity of 
slavery. The South, in the meantime, had fully determined to 
test its right to leave the Union. Matters stood thus when 
Mr. Lincoln and his Cabinet assumed the reins of govern- 
ment, March 4, 1861. In his inaugural address Mr. Lincoln 
labored hard to reassure the South by the frankest disavowal 
of any intention to disturb them in the enjoyment of their 
institutions as they then were, but to no purpose. The die 
had been cast and within a few days Beauregard was des- 
tined to fire on Sumter and "The Star of the West" was to 
be put about off Sullivan's Island as she steamed down the 
bay with supplies from New York. Political affairs at once 
became more mixed and the character of the adherents to 
the government became more complex. To the slavery re- 
strictionists, straight-out Abolitionists and the usual drift of 
motley mugwumps were now added many rank pro-slavery 
War Democrats. The Abolitionists formed the weaknest ele- 
ment of this heterogeneous aggregation, and if this fact is kept 
in mind, together with the fact that Mr. Lincoln himself was 

[94] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

not an Abolitionist, the policy of the government and the con- 
duct of affairs during the early stages of the war will be more 
readily understood. It will be remembered, too, that Mr. Lin- 
coln was born in a slave state (Kentucky) and was reared in 
a border state (Illinois) and knew much of the character and 
temper of slave-holders. Besides having had the opportunity 
to observe the situation at close range, Mr. Lincoln had been 
called upon more than once to consider the particular ques- 
tion of slavery. In 1849 (January 10) when he was a member 
of the House, and outside influences were being brought to 
bear with unusual strength upon Congress for the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, Mr. Lincoln introduced a 
bill for the enactment of a fugitive slave law to be applied to 
the District. 1 At Charleston, 111., on September 8, 1858, dur- 
ing his struggle with Judge Douglas for a seat in the United 
States Senate, Mr. Lincoln stated his position in reply to 
direct questions as follows : "I am not nor never have been 
in favor of bringing about, in any way, the social and political 
equality of the white and black races. I am not nor never 
have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 
of qualifying them to hold office ; * * * there are physi- 
cal differences between the white and black races which I be- 
lieve will forbid the races living together on terms of social 
and political equality, and which, inasmuch as they can not so 
live, while they do remain together, I am in favor of having 
the superior position assigned to the white race. 1 ' 2 That Mr. 
Lincoln's opinion on these questions had not materially 
changed in 1861, the following extract from his first inaugural 
address will tend to show. On making his bow before the na- 
tion on that occasion the President said: "There is no foun- 
dation in reason or cause for apprehension. Indeed, the most 
ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and 
has been open to inspection. It is found in nearly all of the 
public speeches by him who now addresses you. I do but quote 
from one of these speeches when I declare that I have no pur- 
pose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of 



1. Cf. Whitney's "Life on the Circuit With Lincoln," p. 362. 

2. Whitney, p. 358; Richardson's Executive Documents, 1861. 



[95] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no 
power to do so ; I have no inclination to do so. Those who 
nominated and elected me did so with the full knowledge that 
I have made this and many similar declarations and have 
never recanted them. More than this, they placed in the plat- 
form for my acceptance and as a law unto themselves and to 
me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read : 'Re- 
solved that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the 
states and especially of each state, to order and control its 
own domestic institutions according to its own judgment ex- 
clusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the 
perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and 
we denounce the lawless invasion by armed forces of the soil 
in any state no matter on what pretext, as among the gross- 
est crimes.' Now I reiterate these sentiments, and in doing 
so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive 
evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, 
peace and security of no section are to be endangered by the 
incoming administration." 

That Mr. Lincoln was an anti-slavery man no one has any 
reason to doubt ; that he was an Abolitionist, no one has any 
reason to believe; that he was a slavery restrictionist, every 
one knows. His whole life is filled with incidents tending to 
show that he had no sympathy with slave-holding. Indeed, 
the very fact that he came or was brought at an early age 
from the slave state of Kentucky to the free state of Illinois 
would tend to show that his aversion to slavery was delib- 
erate ; but this by no means meant that he was an Abolition- 
ist, which meant to be of that stripe of an anti-slavery man 
who disapproved of slavery not only on moral and political 
grounds but whose opposition to the institution was active, 
bitter and uncompromising and who not only hated slave- 
holding but despised slave-holders and held them up to the 
execration of mankind. With this school of anti-slavery men 
Mr. Lincoln neither had nor claimed any relation. Nor did he 
repudiate them in terms half so severe as they used in their 
repudiation of him, if the opinion of men like Wendell Phil- 
lips and William Lloyd Garrison may be taken as a fair index 

[96] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

to the general opinion of their associates. 3 Perhaps no man 
in history has been more misunderstood by succeeding gen- 
erations than Mr. Lincoln has been in regard to his attitude 
on the question of Negro slavery in the United States. Be- 
tween flatterers, who have deliberately sought to suppress 
the facts on the one hand, and cunning enemies, who have de- 
liberately sought to distort the facts on the other hand in 
order to damn his memory by making it appear that he was 
a time-serving hypocrite, the student unacquainted with the 
whole history of the period, is likely to be left in great con- 
fusion. There is no more comparison to be made between the 
abolitionism of John Brown and Abraham Lincoln than be- 
tween the religion of Bob Ingersoll and Savonarolla. Nor is 
this any necessary discredit to either the head or the heart of 
Mr. Lincoln, certainly not to his head for the reason that had 
he been an Abolitionist, or even been suspected of being 
one, he never would have been President of these United 
States and consequently never would have had the oppor- 
tunity of signing the Emancipation Proclamation which he 
was virtually forced to do under circumstances over which he 
himself acknowledged he had no control. And had he issued 
this famous proclamation at an earlier time or under different 
circumstances, he would have failed as miserably as did John 
Brown at Harper's Ferry. Slave-holders had to be maddened 
like unto those whom the "gods would destroy ;" they had to 
be smitten with blindness so that they could not see what Mr. 
Lincoln tried so hard to show them, while the rest of the 
country had to be taught that the salvation of the Union was 
of greater consequence than their prejudice against Negroes 
or their utter indifference to the fate of the slaves and the 
nation had to learn the deeper significance of the earnestness 
of the southern people in their endeavors to establish a sep- 
arate government with the encouragement of some foreign 
countries, especially England. The question of freeing the 
slaves naturally became involved during the progress of the 
war just as any other matter as to how the enemy might be 
more effectively harrassed by the destruction of his property 



3. Austin's Life of Phillips, p. 233; also Life of Garrison. 

[97] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

or commerce. The slaves were not only property but prop- 
erty of the most valuable and useful type in the hands of the 
enemy. They could not only raise and protect supplies but 
were the actual source of supplies that maintained the oppo- 
nents of the Union army. And however much Mr. Lincoln 
might have regretted having to involve the slaves, especially 
in view of his promise and the promise of his party to main- 
tain the Union and administer the government without dis- 
turbing slavery, he could no more avoid the necessity of free- 
ing the slaves than he could the blockading of southern ports. 
His duty as the Commander-in-Chief of the Federal army 
compelled him to take any step calculated to weaken the 
enemy. Indeed he would have received the condemnation of 
mankind and the execration of history had he failed in this 
paramount duty to the nation at this crisis when the fortunes 
and the lives of so many of its citizens were being exposed 
for its salvation from the threatened dissolution. There is no 
form of cruelty, barbarity and heedless destruction of all that 
is held sacred by man that is not involved in war ; nor is there 
any greater evil with the possible exception of slavery which 
always begins, continues and has its being in warfare and has, 
therefore, been aptly described as the sum of all evils. Slavery 
always begins in war and usually ends as it begins. The 
province of a general is to conquer by destroying the enemy 
and his property and it matters little whether the property 
destroyed is a ship at sea freighted with corn intended to feed 
the enemy's soldiers or slaves in the field hoeing cotton in- 
tended to clothe them. Mr. Lincoln did not start out with any 
deliberate purpose of freeing the slaves and in this regard he 
deserves neither the unsparing condemnation of the South 
nor the extravagant plaudits of anybody else. Fate joined the 
good of the slaves with the good of the country in a "union, 
one and inseparable" and Mr. Lincoln was given a great op- 
portunity which he used like a great man and a great states- 
man. 



[98] 



CHAPTER XI 



The Early Conduct of the War — Union Army Busy Catching Fugi- 
tive Slaves — General Butler's Early Start and Repentance — 
Lincoln's Administration Opposed to Freeing Slaves — General 
Fremont Relieved of His Command Because of His Attempt 
to Free Slaves — General Hunter in South Carolina — The Ad- 
ministration Begins to Recede — Opposition to Negro Soldiers 
— The Draft Riots — Heroic Treatment for Rebellion — The Be- 
ginning of Abolition — The Confiscation Act — Lincoln Offers 
Payment for Emancipated Slaves in the District of Columbia 
— Efforts to Evade Emancipation Law in District of Columbia 
— Clamor for General Emancipation Act — Greeley's Famous 
Letter to Lincoln and Lincoln's Reply — The Preliminary Eman- 
cipation Proclamation. 

Although the war was prosecuted in earnest from the be- 
ginning by the South, the Federal Government for several 
months affected to regard the matter as being of slight im- 
portance. The enthusiastic vigor of the Confederate soldiers 
resulted in victory after victory for their arms until the very 
capitol of the nation was about to fall into their hands before 
the Washington Government came to realize that the contest 
was war and the Union soldiers began to appreciate the fact 
that military glory was involved in success on their part. In- 
deed, during the first eighteen months of the war the Federal 
army seems to have devoted more time to the apprehension 
and return of fugitive slaves than to any serious contention 
with the enemy. Conscious of having wronged the slaves and 
feeling, doubtless, some weak fear of retribution, the slave- 
holders and their sympathizers entertained grave fears of a 
servile uprising. They remembered poor old Nat Turner and 
how he foolishly moved against the whole nation, although 
the nation according to his knowledge and conception con- 
sisted only of the oppressors by whom he was surrounded on 
the Virginia farm where he lived, almost single-handed in his 
effort, in his vain hope, nay, in his madness, to free his people. 
They remembered Denmark Vesey who did practically the 
same thing in South Carolina. That these two efforts at a 

[99] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

servile insurrection had proved to be mere madness, in view 
of the ample and ready arms in hand or at the immediate dis- 
posal of the master class, did not prove, now that these 
masters were absent with their arms, that the slaves even 
without any organization or leader, might not rise up and 
smite the women and children of their masters. Pictures of 
Toussaint L'Ouverture and San Domingo, too, naturally arose 
vividly before the eyes of southern white men at this time. 
But to the surprise of all, to the astonishment of the world 
and to their own everlasting credit the Negroes to a man 
proved themselves to be far too noble even to hint at taking 
advantage of these women and children. And during these 
trying days many a strong slave man slept at the bed cham- 
ber door of his mistress in order to allay her fears. Some 
savage natures, not being able to understand this true no- 
bility might be inclined to ascribe this sort of behavior on the 
part of the slaves to cowardice, but no one who knows any- 
thing about Fort Wagner, Fort Pillow, Fisher's Hill and a 
hundred other battlefields made memorable by the valor of 
Negro soldiers during this same war, would dare call Negroes 
cowardly. So far as the slaves were concerned at this crisis, 
they left retribution where it belonged and vengeance to the 
Lord. He repaid. General Butler, however, on his way South, 
felt called upon to assure the Governor of Maryland that he, 
with his troops, "would put down anything like an insurrec- 
tion on the part of the slaves in that state," and that "any call 
by the Governor for such purpose would be promptly complied 
with by the men of Massachusetts." 1 General Butler's warm 
enthusiasm in that direction, however, was destined to be short 
lived, for he not only experienced a change of heart by the 
time he reached Fortress Monroe, but discovered that he had 
mistaken the temper both of the southern people and of the 
people of Massachusetts as well. Governor Andrews, of 
Massachusetts, took the General sharply to task for his indis- 
cretion ; but Butler set himself right with the whole North 
when a short while later he rebuffed Colonel Mallory who 
wished to enter the Union lines in search of escaped slaves 



1. Gidiling6, p. 464. 

[100] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

by coolly informing him that any Negroes coming inside the 
Union lines would be held as contraband of war, And by the 
time General Butler reached New Orleans he found it neces- 
sary to incline about as far in the other direction in order to 
maintain himself. The women of New Orleans are said to 
have been so enraged on account of the presence of Federal 
troops that they not only railed at them most violently but 
even went so far as to spit upon them. At all events the situa- 
tion became so uncomfortable for Butler and his men that the 
General gave orders permitting his men to treat any woman 
as lude who might insult them. 2 General Butler later became 
one of the most zealous supporters of Negro soldiery and Ne- 
gro citizenship. While Butler's eagerness to offer the Gover- 
nor of Maryland the services of his troops, etc., may have dis- 
pleased Governor Andrews, it did not displease the Washing- 
ton administration, which at the time was making every 
effort to dissuade the South from a continuance of the war 
as well as to demonstrate to the world that the government 
was giving no just cause for the rebellion. And for fear that 
it might be thought abroad that the war was being prosecuted 
for the purpose of depriving the South of its slaves, United 
States Ministers at foreign Courts were instructed to deny 
that such was the intention. Even as late as April 22, 1863, 
Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, deemed it wise and politic 
to give instructions to Mr. Dayton, our Minister to France, 
to the effect "that the condition of slavery in the several 
states will remain just the same whether it (the rebellion) 
succeeded or failed * * * * The right of the states and 
the condition of every human being in them will remain sub- 
ject to the same laws and forms of administration." 3 He even 
went so far as to declare that "Republicanism ought to dis- 
appear before questions touching the Union." 

General McClellan, who was in command of the Union 
army in Ohio and the western part of Virginia, announced 
himself as being ready "to crush anything" in the nature of a 
servile insurrection in his territory. 



3. Giddings, p. 467. 

3. Amer. Conflict II, p. 237; Giddings, p. 465. 

[101] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Unlike Generals Butler and McClellan, General Fremont, 
who was in charge of the Union forces in Missouri at the be- 
ginning of the war, undertook to liberate the slaves of the 
rebels in his territory by proclamation from his camp. Mr. 
Lincoln promptly disapproved of General Fremont's action 
and ordered him to withdraw his order, and being unable to 
get him into line with the administration policy on the ques- 
tion, General Fremont was relieved of his command. 4 In his 
letter to General Fremont, touching the matter, the President 
stated that such action on the part of army officers was not 
only unwarranted but against the spirit of an Act of Con- 
gress relative to the conduct of the war. 5 Colonel D. R. An- 
thony was relieved of his command by the President for what 
would seem to have been a much less grave offence. Colonel 
Anthony had been so much annoyed by slave hunters prowling 
about his camp in search of fugitives that he issued an order 
forbidding slave-holders or their agents to enter within the 
lines of his camp for the purpose of hunting slaves. This order 
cost Colonel Anthony his commission. 

The President was bitterly opposed to fighting the rebellion 
through any interference with slavery and did all he could to 
dissuade both the members of his Cabinet and the officers of 
the Union army from such a course. 6 When Halleck, who 
succeeded Fremont, issued his famous Order No. 3 forbidding 
Negroes to enter the lines of his command because they 
"would carry important information to the enemy" he evi- 
dently pleased the President, as did also Marshall Dent, when 
he ordered his men at Louisville, Ky., to catch and flog any 
colored person caught within the lines of their camp after 
dark. Sundry captures of this sort are said to have furnished 
rare sport to the soldiers under Dent while innocent colored 
persons were being taught to eschew the Union camp. 

When General David Hunter arrived at Hilton Head, S. C, 
he found that a large number of colored people, whose former 
owners had fled on his approach, had gathered there from 



4. Amer. Conflict II, pp. 585, 593. 

5. Ibid, 238. 

«v Brackett's Life of Lincoln, p. 30^; also Whitney, p. 360. 



102] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

various sections of South Carolina and Georgia. He not only 
told these people that they were free but put them to work 
and began to make soldiers of such as were fit. News of this 
having reached Mr. Lincoln, he promptly issued a manifesto 
by which he hoped to put a certain and speedy end to at- 
tempts at emancipation by army officers. The tide of public 
sentiment in the direction of emancipation, however, was too 
strong for Mr. Lincoln to stem ; he had to yield or lose con- 
trol of the whole situation. Even before the action of Hun- 
ter at Hilton Head, a general order had been issued (October 
14, 1861) permitting the employment of fugitive slaves as 
laborers, etc., "coupled with the understanding and public 
purpose that the master should be paid for the services of 
such slaves who should become thus employed," and it was 
also "especially provided that this shall not be taken to mean 
any general employment of Negroes in the military service." 
The Confederacy, however, had not hesitated about employ- 
ing Negroes in its army ; and it was doubtless this fact that 
caused the Lincoln administration to issue the general order 
referred to. In order to check the South in its employment 
of Negro soldiers, Congress passed an Act on August 6th, 
1861, which provided that all colored persons attached to 
the Confederate army who might be captured should be de- 
clared free. No one paid any attention to this act, however, 
as during this time neither any Confederates nor any of 
their attaches were captured. Mr. Cameron, Mr. Lincoln's 
Secretary of War, recommended an attack upon the Con- 
federacy through the use of the slaves or by declaring the 
slaves free in the early part of 1861, but the President spurn- 
ed the suggestion and struck it out of Mr. Cameron's report. 7 
The problem was a puzzling one for the Lincoln adminis- 
tration which was trying "to run with the hare and hold with 
the hounds." Mr. Lincoln's Congress had passed laws intend- 
ed to prevent the slaves from joining their masters in the 

7. Amer. Conflict II, p. 242. Large gangs of slaves were put to work on Con- 
federate redoubts three months before the attack upon Fort Sumter. Free 
Negroes were employed at Charleston, Lynchburg, Memphis and Norfolk in a 
like capacity in 1861. A regiment of 1400 Negroes having been organized, was 
reviewed by the Governor of Louisiana about this period and in 1861 (June) 
Tennessee passed an Act for drafti"< T Negroes into service of the Confederacy. 
(See Long's Hist. Rep. Party, p. 69.) 

[103] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

field, which he plainly had no power to enforce, and in addi- 
tion to this, he had ordered his generals and commanders 
to throw every possible obstacle in the way of slaves escap- 
ing from the South. In order to refute the charge that it 
was "an Abolitionist war, prosecuted and sustained by the 
Black Republicans," the Lincoln administration made every 
effort to teach the colored people that they could hope for 
no benefit from the success of the Union arms ; and it was 
for this reason that Mr. Lincoln opposed the employment of 
Negroes in the Union service in any capacity, though col- 
ored men had been employed in all other wars in which the 
country ever engaged. His cabinet was a unit for the em- 
ployment of Negroes as soldiers as early as July, 1862, but 
the President forbade it, 9 and positively refused to coun- 
tenance such a move until the 20th of January, 1863. Mr. 
Lincoln's opposition to the employment of colored men as 
soldiers was based upon two grounds : First, he pretended 
to have had no faith in their valour notwithstanding their 
previous record as soldiers in the wars with England and 
Mexico. There is room for some doubt as to Mr. Lincoln's 
sincerity in standing on this point ; in view of the fact that 
he had widely published his intention to support slavery and 
his consistent action in this regard up to that time, one feel- 
ing the condemning responsibility for such a state of affairs 
might well doubt whether the Negroes could be safely trust- 
ed to support the Union ; and Mr. Lincoln had good reason 
for asking, "What assurance have we that they will fight 
on our side?" "Giving them (Negroes) arms," continued 
he, "would be equivalent to putting them at the disposal of 
the enemy and we have no more arms than we need for our 
white soldiers." 10 A second reason for his hesitancy about 
employing colored troops was more particularly well found- 
ed. It was on the ground of the rank prejudice on the part 
of the Union soldiers against fighting with "niggers" as 
comrades. There is little doubt, but that the Union soldiers 



8. Whitney, p. 362. 

9. Ibid, 362. 

10. See report of interriew with delegation of Chicago ministers, August, 
W62, Amer. Conflict, II. 



[104] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

would have been deeply offended had colored soldiers been 
introduced into their ranks while under the delusion that 
they themselves were abundantly able to "wipe out the 
Johnnie Rebs in a jiffy." At that period the northern yeo- 
manry was very eager to go to the front ; and when the 
President issued his second call for volunteers, about double 
the required number responded joyfully: "We are coming 
Father Abraham, six hundred thousand strong." But after 
these braves had met the southerners in battle a few times 
and had tasted the hospitality of an Andersonville or Libby 
prison, they were much less anxious to die for their country ; 
and when their terms of enlistment expired, states had to 
resort to draft laws in order to fill their quota of troops. 
The engagement of colored men as soldiers now became a 
matter of serious consideration on the part of the govern- 
ment and the question of freeing the slaves became sub- 
ordinate to that of filling the depleted ranks of soldiers in 
the Union army. 

The necessity for drafting men was more or less humiliat- 
ing to the Washington Government ; besides encouraging 
the South, it tended to publish to the world the fact that 
it was taxing the Union to its uttermost to cope with the 
rebellion. Then, too, the situation was facilitating the way 
for the open reception of the Southern Confederacy into the 
kingdom of nations. The dampened patriotism of northern 
men of the soldier class was further reflected in the anti- 
draft riots that took place in many northern cities, especially 
New York, where the colored people, upon whom the vulgar 
looked as the cause of the war, were ferociously assaulted, 
their dwellings demolished and the inmates in many cases, 
murdered. So fierce was the outbreak, that no colored per- 
son dared to show himself on the streets of New York City 
for several days. This outside pressure was soon reflected 
in Congress, which body now gave evidence of a sharp ad- 
vance on the policy of the Lincoln administration. Up to 
this time the Union army had achieved no victory other than 
such as the apprehension and return of fugitive slaves. In 
its vain endeavor to maintain slavery the government was 

[105] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

frittering away its resources at the rate of millions a day, 
and the feeling of disgust on the part of those supporting 
the Union cause was rapidly giving way to a feeling of 
desperation. 

In the spring of 1862 (April 14th) Senator Wilson offered 
a resolution directing the Committee on Military Affairs to 
report "whether or not further legislation was necessary in 
order to prevent persons employed in the military service 
of the United States from aiding in the return of persons 
claimed as fugitive slaves, and to punish them therefor." 
When this came up for consideration, Senator Grimes had 
it amended so as to have the committee to report at the 
same time "what reorganization as to the personnel of the 
army or otherwise, was necessary to promote the public 
welfare and to bring the rebellion to a speedy close." 

This was the beginning of the heroic treatment to which 
the rebellion was afterwards subjected. There was a gen- 
eral shaking up among the commanders in the army all 
along the line. Slave hunting about the Union camps ceased 
and men like General Halleck, who could see the danger 
of important news being carried to the enemy from the 
Union camps by Negroes, but could not conceive of how 
the same could be done by rebels themselves who were 
given free ingress and egress when they claimed to be hunt- 
ing slaves, were either reduced in rank or sharply reined up. 
General Halleck's Order No. 3, forbidding Negroes to enter 
within the Union lines, became quite famous as it seemed 
to have embodied most fully the timid and spineless policy 
that characterized the Lincoln administration of affairs dur- 
ing the first eighteen months of the war. This order of 
Halleck was brought to the attention of Congress by Senator 
Sumner as early as December 4th, 1861, but it was not re- 
pealed until July 17th, 1862, when this and all similar reg- 
ulations were set aside and their further promulgation pro- 
hibited. In the meantime, propositions, memorials and peti- 
tions for measures to put a speedy end to hostilities were 
poured in an endless stream upon Congress, and of all the 
clamor, the loudest and most persistent note demanded the 

[106] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

emancipation of the slaves. And so, on December 5th, 1861, 
Senator Trumbull introduced a bill providing for the aboli- 
tion of slavery, which was referred to the Judiciary Com- 
mittee together with a number of other propositions of a 
like nature. The committee finally reported a bill embodying 
the emancipation idea. This was known as the Confiscation 
Bill. After it had been debated in the Senate for several 
weeks, it was referred, May 7th, 1862, to a Special Commit- 
tee ostensibly for further consideration but in reality to 
gain time for a further test of public opinion before final 
steps were taken on the measure. The public clamorously 
approved of the step as being one in the right direction. The 
House had also placed a similar measure into the hands of 
a special committee of that body which promptly reported 
the measure subsequently adopted by both Houses. After 
providing for the confiscation of rebel property generally, 
it provided, Section 9, that "All slaves of persons who shall 
hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government 
of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or 
comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking 
refuge within the lines of the army ; and all slaves captured 
from such persons or deserted by them, or coming into the 
control of the Government of the United States, and all 
slaves of persons found or being within any place occupied 
by rebel forces and afterwards captured by the forces of 
the United States, shall be deemed captures of war and shall 
be forever free from servitude and not again held as slaves." 
Section 10 provided for the prohibition of "the capture and 
return of fugitive slaves coming within the Union lines by 
army officers." Section 11 authorized the President "to 
employ colored men in the army in any way he deemed best 
for the suppression of the rebellion." Section 12 authorized 
the President "to provide for the deportation and coloniza- 
tion of such freedmen as should consent to leave the coun- 
try." This act which was approved by the President on 
July 17th, 1862, was the first radical step taken by the Gov- 
ernment in its effort to suppress the rebellion. This radi- 
calism in Congress, however, was but a faint reflection of 

[107] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the general discontent on the outside on account of the con- 
duct of the war. The press became violent in its strictures 
upon both President and Congress; army officers were open- 
ly charged with cowardice or inefficiency ; confidence in the 
government's power to suppress the rebellion from the first 
affected to have been lacking abroad, began to wane at 
home ; those of the soldier class who were at first inclined 
to regard "the wiping out of the Johnnies" as a picnic, were 
now either silent and down-in-the-mouth or bitterly charg- 
ing their disappointment to the malfeasance or misfeasance 
of those in command of the Federal troops. In the mean- 
time, the people of the South were using with telling effect 
the anti-Negro riots in the North and the harsh treatment 
to which Negroes had been subjected by the Union soldiers 
in their endeavors to prove to the slaves that their masters 
were their best friends and that success of the Federal arms 
held no hope for them. Then, too, there was beginning to 
be talk of withholding supplies for the army 11 by many who 
had been the most enthusiastic supporters of the Union 
cause, unless Mr. Lincoln and his associates should become 
more aggressive in the prosecution of the war. Thus press- 
ed on all sides, Mr. Lincoln transmitted to Congress, March 
6, 1862, a special message 12 in which he recommended the 
adoption of the following: "Resolved, That the United 
States ought to co-operate with any state which may adopt 
a plan for the general abolition of slavery, giving such state 
pecuniary aid to be used by it in its discretion to compensate 
the inconvenience, public and private, produced by such 
change of system." In the special message just referred to, 
the President plainly intimated that neither he nor Congress 
had any power to interfere with slavery where it then exist- 
ed ; and in discussing the effect of the resolution he desired 
Congress to pass he said: "It is proposed as a matter of 
perfect freedom with them" (meaning the slave states). Con- 
gress promptly adopted the resolution as above set forth 
and the President approved it April 10th, 1862. The South, 



11. Whitney, p. 362. 
13. Richardson's Ex. Doc. 1862. 



[108] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

however, had been too much encouraged by its numerous 
victories on the battle field and the growing coolness on the 
part of northern supporters of the Lincoln administration 
to pay any attention whatever to such overtures. 

Mr. Lincoln had a most profound belief in the impossi- 
bility of the white and colored races living together on terms 
of civil and political equality ; and it was this fact more 
. than anything else, perhaps, that made him hesitate about 
using his power to forward the cause of emancipation, espe- 
cially if the idea of emancipation was uncoupled with that 
of deportation. 

On December 16th, 1861, Senator Wilson introduced the 
bill by which slavery in the District of Columbia was abolish- 
ed; when this came up for consideration, March 12th, 1862, 
Mr. Garrett Davis of Kentucky, seeing that it was destined 
to pass, endeavored to have it so amended as to provide 
an appropriation of an hundred thousand dollars for the com- 
pulsory deportation of such Negroes. The idea of compul- 
sory deportation did not carry, though an amendment offered 
by Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, providing for the appropria- 
tion of one hundred thousand dollars to aid the American 
Colonization Society in deporting and colonizing such free 
Negroes as were willing to leave the country, was adopted. 
In addition to the foregoing, the bill provided for paying 
loyal owners in the District of Columbia for loss of their 
slaves. In his message to Congress announcing his approval 
of this bill (April 16th, 1862), the President expressed him- 
self as having been especially pleased to note that it "rec- 
ognized both deportation and compensation." Soon after 
this, Mr. E. H. Rollins, Republican, from New Hampshire, 
introduced a bill for the repeal of all the "Black Laws" in 
the District of Columbia which was passed and duly approved 
May 21st, 1862. 13 

When the slave trade in the District of Columbia was 
broken up, the market was moved to Alexandria, Va., al- 
ready known as the most choice slave market in the country, 



13. This bill also provided that ten per cent, of the taxes paid by colored 
people of the District should be devoted to the education of their children. 



[109] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

and slave holders generally began to ship their slaves deeper 
within the lines of the Confederacy. This transferring move- 
ment became so lively, Senator Sumner induced Congress 
to pass a resolution requiring the Secretary of the Interior 
to furnish Congress with a list of slave holders in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, together with a list of their slaves, and 
steps were accordingly taken to prevent the further evasion 
of the Emancipation Act. This legislation was supplemented 
by an act approved July 12th, 1862, which provided that 
any colored person coming into the District of Columbia 
under any pretenses or circumstances, whether as an em- 
ployee or otherwise, should be free. 

While the public endorsed and applauded such legislation 
as the emancipation of the slaves in the District of Columbia, 
they did not for a moment cease their clamor for a general 
emancipation act as a war measure. And hardly a month 
had passed after these laws were enacted before Horace 
Greeley addressed an open letter to the President, asking 
him in the name of twenty millions, to free the slaves. 14 This 
letter made a deep impression throughout the country, not 
because of any pungency, for it contained nothing charac- 
teristic of the fulminations of a brilliant journalist ; it was 
like a stirring, thrilling, ominous, still alarm. Mr. Lincoln, 
catching the spirit of the urgency of the message, telegraph- 
ed his reply which, together with the letter, was published 
far and wide. In his reply, the President asserted that his 
sole object and aim was the salvation of the Union; and 
that whatever he should do about the colored people and 
about slavery, would be done because in his opinion, it would 
help save the Union. "If I could save the Union with slav- 
ery, I would do it," said he; "if I could save it without 
slavery, I would do it." Delegation after delegation came to 
the White House daily and almost hourly, to entreat the 
President to declare the bondmen free. Finally when it ap- 
peared that whatever happened, conditions could hardly be- 
come worse, Mr. Lincoln, on September 22nd, 1862, issued 
his warning, giving notice to the South that either slavery 



14. Augu»t 22, 1862— see American Conflict II, p. 249. 

[110] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

or the war must cease by January 1st, 1863. Puffed up with 
pride, flushed with victory and big with hope, the Confed- 
eracy scorned the Lincoln manifesto. The causus belli as 
then viewed by the South was no longer slavery, however 
prominent the part played by that question in the beginning. 
Nor was the South fighting for slaves. The question in- 
volved a principle which was as old as the government itself, 
namely, whether or not the Confederacy had a right to be. 
If it had the right of existence, it would of course make its 
own laws and maintain such institutions as it deemed de- 
sirable ; if it had no such right, it could be determined only 
by the arbitrament of war. The question of holding slaves 
was, therefore, regarded by the South as irrelevant, so Mr. 
Lincoln's threat fell flat. Finally the first of January, 1863, 
came around and there was nothing for Mr. Lincoln to do 
but to issue his Emancipation Proclamation ; its effect upon 
the spirit of the people was magical ; the whole civilized 
world was electrified; and from that hour the Union was 
saved. Mr. Lincoln's private opinion of this act — the one 
great .thing that he did that will be remembered when all 
else is forgotten — is set forth in a letter to A. G. Hodges of 
Frankford, Ky., under date of April 4th, 1864. 15 Said he, "I 
claim not to have controlled events but that events have 
controlled me." The most ardent Abolitionist did not expect 
to see the slaves liberated by act of Congress ; there was 
no constitutional warrant for such action. To proclaim 
emancipation as a war measure was Mr. Lincoln's only re- 
sort and a too hasty exercise of this power would have hardly 
been safe. 

15. Whitney, p. 288. 



[Ill] 



CHAPTER XII 



Lincoln Again Offers Pay for Emancipation of Slaves— Resolutions 
in Congress Demanding Unconditional Emancipation — Presi- 
dent Doubts Authority and Hesitates to Issue Proclamation. 

When Congress met in December, 1862, everything was 
moving rapidly. In fact, events were taking such a sweep 
that sequence seemed wanting and all things were apparently 
happening together. Prospects for a settlement of the sec- 
tional differences or the cessation of hostilities were no 
where visible ; the sky was still draped dark and deep with 
the smoke of belligerent cannon ; the only response from the 
Confederacy to Lincoln's threat of September 22nd in con- 
nection with the proposed freedom of the slaves, was a 
challenge to battle. Mr. Lincoln clearly saw in this situa- 
tion that the life of the Union was now inextricably mixed 
with and inseparable from the emancipation of the slaves. 
He also saw that the status of the freedmen would be the 
subject of new problems and determined to make another 
effort to open the eyes of the Confederates and to convince 
them to his views; and with such hope in mind, Mr. Lincoln 
recommended to Congress the passage of a bill providing 
that any state freeing its slaves by the year 1900 should 
receive pay in United States bonds; and that the freedmen 
should be deported. 1 But the President found that in addi- 
tion to the South, he now had another stubborn body to deal 
with in the shape of Congress which had evinced a deter- 
mination to pursue a more decided if not more drastic policy. 
On the very next day after receipt of the President's mes- 
sage (December 2nd), Mr. Elliott of Massachusetts intro- 
duced in the House a resolution declaring it to be "the duty 
of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the army to 
emancipate the slaves;" and at the same time Mr. Stevens 



1. Annual Message Dec. 1, 1862. 

[112] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

offered a resolution to the effect that "the President be re- 
quested to declare free all slaves in the rebel states." Both 
of these resolutions were referred to the Judiciary Commit- 
tee. Simultaneously with this movement in the House, Sen- 
ator Pomeroy was having referred to a special committee 
"that part of the President's message which referred to 
compensated emancipation and deportation." Congress show- 
ed how widely it differed from the President on these ques- 
tions a few days after this time (December 15th), by simply 
ignoring the bill introduced by Representative Noell of Mis- 
souri providing for the abolition of slavery in his state on 
condition that the masters be paid in United States Govern- 
ment Bonds. Missouri in common with several other states 
had been given an opportunity such as Mr. Noell now sought 
even as late as July 16th, 1862, when Mr. White, a Represen- 
tative from Indiana, reported from the House Special Com- 
mittee on Emancipation, a bill providing for the purchase 
of the slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, 
Kentucky and Missouri at the rate of three hundred dollars 
a piece, on condition that they should be freed within five 
years, which bill carried an appropriation of one hundred 
and eighty million dollars in Government bonds for paying 
for the slaves and twenty million dollars for the deportation 
of the freedmen. After the passage of the Confiscation Act 
it soon became evident that Congress, whatever might be 
the attitude of the Executive, was done with trying to com- 
promise with the South. 

Mr. Lincoln had very decided opinions both as to the 
feasibility and as to his duty and authority in connection 
with freeing the slaves. Mr. Julian declared that Mr. Lin- 
coln was absolutely opposed to the emancipation of the 
slaves, and wanted it distinctly understood when his pre- 
liminary proclamation was issued that deportation of the 
Negroes was inseparably connected with the scheme ; that 
Mr. Lincoln was at that time pressing upon Congress a 
scheme of colonization ; and that it was by no means certain 
that had he foreseen the failure of his plan in this particular, 

[113] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued. 2 
Mr. Whitney 3 who has been several times quoted and who 
knew Mr. Lincoln perhaps, better and more intimately than 
most any of his numerous biographers, in speaking of Mr. 
Lincoln's aversion to employing Negroes as soldiers, de- 
clares that "while he so reluctantly acquiesced in the scheme 
of arming the Negroes, he was a little earlier in time but 
equally reluctant to free them ; and coupled with this neces- 
sity was his design to compensate such owners as would re- 
main loyal to the Union, also to send the Negroes out of 
the country." Continuing, Mr. Whitney declares that the 
"reason for his conception of the policy of emancipation in 
1862, was a belief that extremists at the North would with- 
hold supplies from the government unless he freed the 
slaves." "This was threatened," says he, "in several high 
quarters, both from excitable persons like Greeley, Phillips 
and Lovejoy, also from imperturbable leaders like Andrews, 
Curtain and Raymond 4 * * * . In this dire distress, the Presi- 
dent, conscious that he must make terms with the radicals, 
held an interview with border state people on July 12th, 
1862, and implored them to concur in his poilcy of emanci- 
pation with compensation. But his pleading was to deaf 
ears. The next day, the President informed Seward and 
Wells, members of his cabinet, that he must liberate the 
slaves — no other alternative was in sight. Still he hesitated 
and implored the Almighty to avert a necessity for so ex- 
treme and revolutionary an act, using the same words of 
our Savior, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from 
me. 



2. Life of Hon. George W. Julian. Julian was a member of Congress and a 
staunch Abolitionist. 

3. Whitney, p. 362, etc. Julian's "Political Recollections." 

4. Governors of Mass., Penna., and N. Y., respectively. 



[114] 



CHAPTER XIII 



The Edict of Emancipation — The Thirteenth Amendment — Civil 
Rights in the District of Columbia — The Penniless Freedmen — 
Establishment of the Freedman's Bureau — The Death of 
Lincoln. 

The slavery system had been so disorganized through the 
exigencies of the war that by 1863 the fealty of the colored 
people to their masters was more potent in maintaining the 
statu quo than any fear of coercion on the part of the slaves. 
The rich plantations of the South had been ruined and the 
people impoverished through their support of the Confed- 
eracy. Thousands of slaves had already broken away from 
their chains and gone far beyond the reach of patrols by 
the first day of January, 1863. Aside from this situation in 
the South, the country at large was by far more interested 
in the result of battles that were in constant progress than 
in the question as to what was being done concerning the 
slaves. President Lincoln's final edict declaring the slaves 
free in the rebellious states on and after January 1st, 1863, 
did not cause a single ripple of excitement beyond the frantic 
jubilation of the freedmen. 

The first great epoch in the history of the Negro in Amer- 
ica was now past after extending over a period of two 
hundred and forty-four years (1619-1863). In view of the 
light esteem in which Negroes were held, especially just 
before the war, by the vast majority of the people of the 
United States and even by the very man who signed the 
Emancipation Proclamation, the consummation of their free- 
dom at that time was little less than miraculous. In his 
message of December, 1863, Mr. Lincoln had but little to 
say concerning his proclamation freeing the slaves. He 
knew and all knew that the efficiency of his proclamation 
depended entirely upon the final outcome of the war; and 
the language of his message plainly revealed the fact that 

[115] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

even then he would have been willing to have sacrificed 
anything to stop the war. The fortunes of war had at last 
turned in favor of the Federal forces and it needed no prophet 
to foretell what the end must be. At the beginning of its 
session, therefore, Congress at once began to formulate 
plans for making universal freedom in the United States a 
part of our organic law. Prominent among the propositions 
for a constitutional amendment submitted in the House, was 
one by Thaddeus Stevens, March 28th, 1864; while in the 
Senate propositions of a like purport were submitted by 
Senators Sumner and Henderson, that of the latter having 
subsequently been reported and adopted in almost the exact 
language of its author. 1 There was now an apparent dis- 
position on the part of Congress, which maintained a position 
ahead of the Executive and behind the people, to slow up 
and watch the effect of the radical legislation already adopted. 
There were certain men in Congress, however, who viewed 
the general emancipation act as a mere frame into which 
real emancipation had to be set. Mr. Sumner, who was 
Chairman of the Special Committee on Emancipation, in the 
Senate, at once turned his attention to the District of Col- 
umbia and reported a bill, December 10th, 1863, intended to 
secure the equality of all before the law in the District ; and 
this was soon followed by another act forbidding the ex- 
clusion of colored persons from the streets cars in that 
place. 

The Senate passed the Thirteenth Amendment on April 
8th, 1864, but the measure was not brought to a vote in 
the House until June 15th, when it failed for want of the 
requisite two-thirds vote, there having been 93 votes for 
to 65 contra, while 23 members refused to vote. Mr. James 
M. Ashley on seeing that the measure was about to 
be defeated, changed his vote from the affirmative to the 
negative, and at the same time gave notice to the House 
of his intention to move for a reconsideration of the motion 
by which the measure was defeated. Mr. Ashley upbraided 
his colleagues of the House for their refusal to support the 



1. Globe First Session Thirty-eighth Cong., pp. 145, 553. 

[116] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

amendment on its first vote. These men were afraid to go 
on record, however, in favor of such legislation until they 
had seen how the forthcoming election would result. As 
Mr. Ashley had predicted, in the elections of November, 1864, 
the supporters of the Thirteenth Amendment were over- 
whelmingly victorious, the matter having been made a 
special issue. In view of this situation and of the further 
fact that the President urged the adoption of the amend- 
ment in his annual message, when the House met in Decem- 
ber there was nothing to be done about the matter but to 
take a formal vote giving its approval, which vote was taken 
on January 31st, 1865, when the amendment was passed by 
a vote of 119 to 56. It was enrolled and sent to the President 
who signed it February 1st, and slavery so far as it could 
be affected by national legislation, was forever abolished in 
the United States. 

The colored people's "Far off divine event" at last had 
come ; the time of which thousands had dreamed enchanted, 
only to be awakened in disappointment ; the time when old 
things for them had passed away and their new heaven and 
new earth suddenly appeared. Freedom with all its sup- 
posed privileges had come, — actual, visible freedom ; and this 
was not only now a tangible fact, but it was magnified and 
exaggerated. The responsibilities of freedom had come, too, 
silently, grimly, uncompromisingly; but these were unap- 
preciated by the freedmen in the sudden glare of glory. 
Whatever the theory may be, the practical test as to whether 
a man ought to be free is involved in his ability to maintain 
himself as a freeman ; and there is never any question about 
this where one seizes his freedom. The colored people who 
were not slaves before the war had maintained themselves 
in a most commendable manner, it is true ; but they were 
given or gained their liberty under normal conditions, and 
the test was only fair. But here were four million freedmen 
turned loose without a dollar or a crust of bread and no 
shelter but the canopy of heaven ; old men and women who 
had spent their many winters under the yoke, and young 
children, none of whom ever knew what it was to shift for 

[117] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

themselves. For many days thousands of these poor people 
who had been angrily driven from their cabins, had to sleep 
on the bare ground and subsist upon fruit and herbage. But 
the government that freed them did not require them to 
perform the impossible feat of self maintenance from the 
beginning, though help could not be at once extended to all 
as we have just observed. The Freedman's Bureau, however, 
was promptly established by an act passed March 3, 1865. 
Section 4 of the Act creating this Bureau provided as fol- 
lows : "That the Commissioner under direction of the Presi- 
dent, shall have authority to set apart for the use of loyal 
refugees 2 and freedmen such tracts of land within the in- 
surrectory states as shall have been abandoned or to which 
the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation 
or sale or otherwise ; and to every male citizen, whether 
refugee or freedman, there shall be assigned not more than 
forty acres of such land, and the person to whom it is so 
assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the 
land for the term of three years at a nominal rent not ex- 
ceeding six per cent, of the value of such land as appraised 
by the state authorities in the year 1860 for the purpose of 
taxation." The Act further provided that at the end of said, 
term or at any time within said term, the occupants might 
purchase the land and receive such title as the United States 
might have. 3 

Slavery to which we bowed so long either in adoration 
or in fear; that robbed the nation of rest and peace for two 
centuries ; that during four years alone, cost billions in 
money, to say nothing of the imponderable loss of life and 
the long sufferings of a race, had now struck about its last 
blow of resistance, having had only one more to strike by 
which the culmination of its evil genius was to be made 
manifest ; and this was to be aimed at the President who had 
"charity for all and malice towards none ;" whose life was 
the climax of the 19th century towards which events for- 



2. The term applied to southern whites who were loyal to the Union and 
were exiled from that section on that account. 

3. U. S. Laws, Second Session Thirty-eighth Cong., p. 141. 

[118] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ages had pointed, his position marking twelve on the dial 
of modern institutions involving the liberties and govern- 
ments of people. Mr. Lincoln was the star actor in the 
great tragic drama of the ages in which another noted player 
spoke his "Principles of Civil Government," Tom Paine, his 
"Rights of Man," Jefferson his immortal Declaration, while 
Burns and Whittier joined in a chorus of song. In this great 
tragedy, staged at the beginning of man's history, in which 
the world's heroes have sought to interpret the emotions 
and strivings of the parties and races they represent, emanat- 
ing from man's love of home, clan and country, the divine 
author assigned to none more beautiful lines than those put 
into the mouth of Lincoln : "With charity for all and malice 
towards none." 4 



4. Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre, at 
Washington, D. C, on the evening of April 14, 1865. 



]119[ 



CHAPTER XIV 



The Colored Soldiers and Their Status — Discrimination as to Pay 
and Treatment — Massachusetts' Colored Troops Refuse Pay — 
Officer Littlefield's Report — The Draft Act — The Commission 
to Pay Loyal Masters. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Lincoln's opposition to the employ- 
ment of colored men as soldiers and the fact that white 
men of the soldier class violently asserted their objections 
to fighting with Negroes as comrades, the colored people 
seemed to have felt instinctively that they had much at 
stake on the result of the war and that their welfare and 
interests were inseparably connected with those who support- 
ed the Union. Negro soldiers were no new thing. L'Ouver- 
ture, 1 three quarters of a century before this time, had taught 
the world his immortal lesson in patriotism, and the use of 
arms ; Salem 2 and Warren 3 had fallen as comrades at Bunker 
Hill ; the blood of colored men had flown, speaking as it 
went, mingling with that of other Americans in the war of 
1812. But persistent opposition to such troops was now 
developed for the first time in all our history. We have 
already noted how many of the objections to colored troops 
being used in the war were met and overcome. Colored 
men were now eager to enter the army, and the government 
sorely needed them, but did not want to give them a definite 
status as soldiers. 

Among the troops which Massachusetts sent to the field 
in the early part of 1863, were two regiments of colored 
men whose status in the army was rather anomalous. In 
July, 1862, Senator Wilson introduced a resolution amend- 
ing the Act approved February 28th, 1795, providing for the 
calling out of the militia, which amendment, among other 
things, provided that all persons who should be enrolled in 



1. Haytian Negro General. 

2. Peter Salem, Negro, who shot Major Pitcairn, British officer, at Bunker 
Hill. 

3. General Warren, American Commander. 



120| 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the army under this Act should receive the pay of regular 
soldiers except "persons of African descent who should re- 
ceive ten dollars per month and one ration." Hereupon, 
Senator Sherman moved to amend the Wilson resolution so 
as to provide that three dollars per month of the ten dollars 
should be retained for clothing and this amendment was 
agreed to and the measure passed in that shape. There 
was also embodied in the same measure, which was made 
a part of the Confiscation Bill, provision for the freedom of 
the mother, wife and children of colored men enlisting under 
the Act. This part of the Act referred to slaves of rebel 
masters only; the status of those belonging to loyal masters 
was touched upon in our first notice of the bill where pro- 
vision was made for the freedom of the slave with payment 
of bounty, etc., to the master. The pay of white soldiers at 
the time was fixed at thirteen dollars a month in addition to 
clothing and supplies, besides being allowed two rations a 
day. The Wilson-Sherman measure, which was meant to 
apply to free Negroes like those of Massachusetts, therefore, 
was very discriminative as between the colored and white 
troops. The Massachusetts regiments above referred to were 
duly received in the service of the United States and at once 
sent to the front ; and soon many of these men were asleep 
on Sullivan's Island with their gallant leader, Colonel Shaw. 
The paymaster arrived in due course and tendered the amount 
arranged for under the Act of Congress just mentioned. 
The money was refused. No word of protest was uttered nor 
was there a murmur heard from these soldiers. The State of 
Massachusetts gratuitously offered to make up the difference 
but the offer was refused. Month after month passed while 
nothing but hard fighting and harder treatment went to make 
up the history of these colored soldiers for the Union. 
Benevolent citizens of Massachusetts anxiously besought 
these troops to accept private donations from them but all 
were respectfully declined. The fact that every time the pay- 
master came around he found fewer and fewer of the now 
veterans to whom it was his duty to offer this insult, told 
plainer than words what was happening to these men, the 

[121] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

bones of many of whose comrades were whitening in the 
fields and swamps of the South where they had been killed 
in battle or had been murdered as prisoners of war while 
fighting in defense of a nation whose Representatives were 
quibbling about according them the rights of common 
soldiers. And a whole year passed before Attorney General 
Bates, in co-operation with the Secretary of War and many 
field Generals, succeeded in inducing Congress to abrogate 
this statute. In connection with his bill for the equalization 
of the pay of soldiers employed in the United States army, 
Senator Wilson, on February 3, 1864, read a report from M. S. 
Littlefield, who was in command of the colored troops at 
Folly Island, of which the following are extracts, being 
answers to specific points of inquiry made by the Senator: 
"The amount of work done by black soldiers as compared 
with the whites was as 56 to 51. * * * These men, as 
soldiers, have been severely tested, tried as they were for 
fatigue men. * * * The assaulting column at Fort Wag- 
ner, July 18, was led by the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts ; and 
their decimated ranks and the number of the dead picked up 
in the trenches and on the parapet and in the fort speaks 
plainer than words of their bravery in that sanguinary con- 
flict. * * * They entered into the engagement with an 
enthusiasm rarely equaled and never excelled." The report 
further went on to say that "the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts 
entered the service on May 28, 1863, with full ranks. This 
regiment lost in killed in battle 59 men, every one of whom 
died in debt to the government for supplies, having received 
no pay and their families no pension or bounty. There were 
wounded of this regiment, 155; the greater portion of these 
were discharged without pay. Every man who fell at James 
Island on July 6 and Fort Wagner July 18, was in debt to the 
government for clothing ; they have died and received no 
pay." 4 Mr. Wilson's measure provided, Section 2: That color- 
ed and white soldiers should be subjected to the same treat- 
ment in every particular. This section applied especially to 



4 For full report see Globe, First Session Thirty-eighth Congress, p. 480; see 
also Gen. B. F. Butler's Book, Chap. XVI. 

[122] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

those enlisting after January 1, 1864. Section 3 provided 
that all persons who enlisted in response to the call of the 
President for three hundred thousand volunteers on October 
17, 1863, should receive the same amount of pay, bounty, etc., 
regardless of color. Section 4 provided that all persons who 
were free April 19, 1861, and had enlisted in the service of 
the United States, should be entitled to receive the same 
pay, bounty, etc., as were then allowed by law to other per- 
sons in the service at the time. This Act was duly approved 
and became law June 15, 1864. It was afterwards amended, 
June 15, 1866, so as to provide that there should be a pre- 
sumption of freedom in case of enlistment unless otherwise 
stated. And by an Act passed March 2, 1867, the word "white" 
was stricken out of all our military laws. Congress provided 
for the payment of back wages, etc., due the colored soldiers 
by an Act passed June 6, 1866. The Draft Act, which was ap- 
proved February 24, 1864, provided for the enrollment of all 
able-bodied colored men between the ages of 20 and 45 years ; 
that when the slave of a loyal master should be enrolled 
under the Act, his master should receive one hundred dollars 
and the slave should be free ; that Congress should appoint a 
commission in each state to award pay to such loyal masters 
as claimed service of any colored soldier in the army, the 
amount not to exceed three hundred dollars, as bounty money. 
Some of the provisions of these Acts may be confusing unless 
one keeps in mind the particular classes to which they were 
intended to be applied. The Wilson measure just referred to 
was retroactive and was intended to apply to colored soldiers 
who were free at the beginning of the war, like the Massa- 
chusetts regiment ; to those who were freed by the proclama- 
tion that went into effect January 1, 1863, and to those who 
escaped from rebel masters prior to that time and enlisted in 
the army. The Act of February, 1864, had particular refer- 
ence to the colored troops recruited in slave states not cover- 
ed by the Emancipation Proclamation where the whites were 
presumably loyal. 

The position of the colored soldier in the Civil War has no 
parallel in history. The Supreme Court of the United States 

[123] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

had just decided that they were not citizens ; Congress re- 
fused to treat them as soldiers ; their comrades refused to 
treat them as men. Warriors they were indeed, but warriors 
without a country, regiments without a flag, soldiers without 
comrades. They fought for a government that openly strug- 
gled to deprive them of all the benefits of victory ; for a coun- 
try in whose glory they were openly denied any share; for a 
people who hated them as cordially as the enemy against 
which they contended. They fought without promise, with- 
out money and almost without hope. Their record forms a 
new page in history without a precedent and which, doubt- 
less, will be without a subsequent. 



1241 



CHAPTER XV 



Just After the War— Reconstruction— Republicans Divided into 
Radicals and Conservatives— Probable Attitude of Lincoln— 
The Sumner Plan— Hints at Extension of the Suffrage— Con- 
gress Petitioned to Extend Suffrage — The Black Code Attacked 
—President Johnson and Congress at Odds— The Growth of 
Radicalism— Suffrage in the District of Columbia— The Power 
of the Freedman's Bureau Extended— Negroes put into Pos- 
session of Land by Sherman. 

"The cruel war" was over. Lee had delivered to Grant his 
sword and Grant had returned it with the pregnant words: 
"Let us have peace," and the great Virginian had bidden fare- 
well to his staff, saying to them, with his eyes suffused with 
tears, "We have fought through the war together;" yet the 
sectional strife, with the Negro as the bone of contention, 
had really just begun. The scene of the struggle was only 
transferred from the battlefield to Congress, towards which 
all eyes were now turned. The southern whites looked to 
Congress to know what would be done with particular refer- 
ence to them ; the colored people looked to Congress to know 
what would be done particularly for them, while Congress 
itself was puzzled to know what ought to be done and what 
could be done to conserve the best interests of all concerned. 
The cessation of hostilities was about as confusing as their 
continuance had been. The relation of the seceded states to 
the national government ; the necessary steps to be taken to 
induce or compel the southern whites to recognize and re- 
spect the freedom of the blacks; the most practical methods 
to be pursued in teaching the freedmen properly to appreciate 
their own manhood and responsibilities were matters which 
demanded the most profound statesmanship and diplomatic 
skill. The mere termination of hostilities seemed to have sat- 
isfied those who were solicitious only for the salvation of the 
Union; many others seemed to have thought that the mere 
abolition of slavery was enough. After saving the Union and 

[125] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

abolishing slavery who could ask for more? To hope for more 
was to be an impractical theorist ; to demand more was to be 
a fanatic. In their great joy over the ending of the war, the 
great body of the people forgot that the whole resulted in 
raising by far more questions than had been settled ; that the 
conflict destroyed the quasi order, that was, leaving our whole 
social and political systems in chaos and confusion. 

A conflict at once aros*e in Congress between those who de- 
sired to reconstruct the governments of the seceded states in 
accordance with the new order of things, and those who did 
not want anything done to remind the South of its defeat. 
Even during the war there had been those known as "Copper- 
heads," such as Vallandingham, of Ohio, and Fernanda Wood, 
of New York, who consistently championed the cause of the 
secessionists as earnestly, if not as ably, as Messrs. Davis and 
Toombs had done, and the number of more or less vigorous 
opponents of Republican legislation now began rapidly to in- 
crease. In the meantime the South began to settle on a policy 
of its own in regard to the treatment of the freedmen which 
involved a determination to exterminate them. This apparent 
intention on the part of the white people of the South to ex- 
terminate the colored people or reduce them to a position 
more intolerable than what slavery itself had been, coupled 
with the serious disagreement between President Johnson 
and Congress, is responsible for much of the radical legisla- 
tion enacted by Congress during that period. The pitiable 
situation of the freedmen in the South was notorious, and 
when the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress met De- 
cember 4, 1865, there was a shower of petitions and bills bear- 
ing upon the matter. Everybody seemed to have had a plan 
of his own. As to what Mr. Lincoln might have done in this 
crisis had he been living is a matter of conjecture. Though 
he was chary of speech where definite plans and policies were 
concerned, he had said and done enough before his untimely 
death to let it be known that he was far from being a radical 
reconstructionist. Mr. Lincoln would go only so far as to say 
that the seceded states "were out of relation with respect to 
the government." During the last days of the first session of 

[126] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the Thirty-eighth Congress a joint resolution was passed by 
both Houses prescribing the conditions upon which the re- 
bellious states might be received back into the Union and de- 
claring the attitude of Congress towards them as follows: 
First, that they "should be allowed to cast no electoral votes ;" 
second, that they "should not be allowed to elect United 
States Senators and Representatives ;" third, that they 
"should be required to acquiesce unreservedly in the Thir- 
teenth Amendment." Mr. Lincoln refused to approve this 
measure and accomplished its defeat by "pocketing" it, or 
holding it up without signing or returning it until after Con- 
gress adjourned ; he then undertook to substitute for this Act 
a plan of his own by proclamation and in so doing gave grave 
offense to several members of Congress who had been 
his most ardent supporters. 1 Further light is shed upon the 
probable course of Mr. Lincoln by the later position of cer- 
tain Congressmen who were known always to reflect the sen- 
timents of the Executive with more or less accuracy. These 
abject followers of the Executive returned to Washington 
prepared to advocate a much weaker policy. During the last 
days of this Congress Mr. Ashley brought up a bill involving 
the same matter as that encouched in the bill which Mr. Lin- 
coln declined to approve, in such an emasculated form that he 
himself was displeased with it and characterized it as a mere 
compromise ; but as it savored of an extension of the suffrage 
it failed and it was openly charged on the floor of Congress 
that the failure of this, too, was due to the opposition of 
President Lincoln to such measures. Garfield, Conklin and a 
number of others were on the very verge of a breach with the 
Lincoln administration, while both Mr. Ashley and H. Winter 
Davis arraigned Mr. Lincoln on the floor of the House in no 
uncertain manner. 2 There is but little doubt that Mr. Lincoln 
would have had to mend his pace in order to have kept up 
with the Congress elected just after the war by men who had 
gained much practical knowledge of the temper and condi- 
tions of the southern people and who, perhaps, had some vivid 



1. See Appendix. 

2. Globe, February 21, 1865, p. 968. 



[127] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

memories of the prison pens at Andersonville or Libby. One 
of the biggest and most puzzling questions confronting Con- 
gress at this time was as to the status of the seceded states. 
Were they living members of the Union only "out of relation 
with the national government," or were they not only dis- 
mantled but dead members of the Union and as such, had no 
political rights except such as Congress might now confer? 
Mr. Sumner, the leader of the radicals in the Senate, em- 
bodied his notions as to the matter in resolutions offered be- 
fore the Senate December 4, 1865, of which the following is 
a resume : "Resolved that it is the first duty of Congress to 
take care that no state declared in rebellion shall resume its 
relations to the Union until the satisfactory performance of 
five several conditions, which conditions precedent must be 
submitted to a popular vote and be sanctioned by a majority 
of the people of each state respectively as follows: 1st, The 
complete re-establishment of loyalty as shown by an honest 
recognition of the unity of the Republic and duty of allegi- 
ance to it at all times without mental reservation or equivo- 
cation of any kind ; 2nd, the complete suppression of all oli- 
garchical pretensions and the complete enfranchisement of all 
citizens, so that there shall be no denial of rights on account 
of race or color, but justice shall be impartial and all shall be 
equal before the law; * * * 5th, that states can not be 
precipitated back to political power and independence, but 
must wait until these conditions are in all respects fulfilled." 
In another set of resolutions presented the same day Mr. 
Sumner suggested the calling of conventions for the purpose 
of reorganizing these state governments setting forth who 
should be eligible to participate in the same and declaring 
that "no government of a state recently in rebellion, can be 
accepted as Republican where large masses of the citizens 
who have always been loyal to the United States are excluded 
from the elective franchise, and especially where the Union 
soldier with all his kindred and race * * * * are thrust 
away from the polls to give place to the very men by whose 
hand, wound and death were inflicted ; more particularly 
where, as in some of the states, the result would be to disfran- 

[128] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

chise a majority of the citizens who have always been loyal 
and give to the oligarchical minority recently engaged in 
carrying on the rebellion, the power to oppress the loyal ma- 
jority, even to the extent of driving them from their homes 
and depriving them of all opportunity of a livelihood. * * * 
No government can be accepted as Republican in form where 
a large portion of the native-born citizens, charged with no 
crime and no failure of duty, is left wholly unrepresented al- 
though compelled to pay taxes ; and especially where a single 
race is singled out and denied representation, though com- 
pelled to pay taxes." At this particular time Senator Sumner 
stood practically alone in his position on the question of re- 
construction ; the obstinacy of President Johnson and the ac- 
tivity of the Ku Klux Klan, however, soon compelled many 
others to join Sumner and the radicals, though not before 
he had been much berated as a "crank" and visionary even by 
many of his Republican colleagues. Senator Sumner's senti- 
ments soon began to be echoed outside of Congress. The 
legislatures of several states passed resolutions requesting 
Congress to extend the suffrage. In nearly all the states there 
were two sets of laws — one for the whites and another for 
the colored people. And not only was there a difference in the 
privileges under the law in regard to the two races, but the 
penalties and punishments differed as well. The formulation 
of a most iniquitous system of "black laws" was the first 
thing done by the southern states upon their rinding out that 
emancipation was a fact. The shameless character of these 
codes was brought to the attention of Congress and on De- 
cember 3, 1865, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens offered a measure 
which provided that all national and state laws should be 
equally applicable to all citizens among whom there should 
be no discrimination on account of race or color. This meas- 
ure was adopted by the House after an extended debate and 
many bitter passes between the members. The Stevens propo- 
sition was not so radical as the position of Sumner, whose 
resolutions sounded the keynote of both the Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth Amendments. Indeed, Mr. Sumner brought this 
measure forward in the first instance as a proposed Four- 

[129] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

teenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it was not re- 
ported out of the Judiciary Committee to which it was re- 
ferred. 

As the policy of Congress in relation to the freedmen as- 
sumed a more aggressive tone, the more evident became the 
friction between that body and the President. Mr. Johnson 
was a southern man and before the war had been a most fear- 
less champion of his section. As a Republican he was known 
to be a Conservative of the Conservatives ; it was suspected 
and even feared in some quarters that he had never experi- 
enced any real change of heart on the questions of dealing 
with colored people. He never had the confidence of the radi- 
cals in Congress who first doubted, then disputed and finally 
attacked him. Thaddeus Stevens was chief among those who 
opposed him in the House, and in speaking of the bitterness 
of Stevens against President Johnson, Senator Doolittle said, 
insinuatingly: "He (Stevens) goes with the furtherest and is 
most bitterly opposed to the present administration. He stig- 
matizes Andrew Johnson as an alien enemy and opposed his 
nomination at Baltimore." 3 Mr. Stevens was very little if any 
behind Sumner in his advanced attitude on the race question. 
Referring to the matter in a speech delivered in the House on 
December 18, 1865, Mr. Stevens said: "The infernal laws of 
slavery have prevented them (the colored people) from ac- 
quiring education, understanding the commonest laws of con- 
tracts or managing the ordinary business of life. This Con- 
gress is bound to provide for them until they can take care of 
themselves. If we do not furnish them with homesteads and 
hedge them about with laws ; if we leave them to the legisla- 
tion of their late masters, we had better left them in bondage. 
Their condition would be worse than that of our soldiers at 
Andersonville. If we fail in this great duty, now we have the 
power, we shall deserve and receive the execration of history 



3. Col. A. K. McClure, of Philadelphia, who was on most intimate terms with 
Mr. Lincoln, declared that Johnson was nominated for Vice-President at the 
Baltimore Convention in 1864 solely through the influence of Lincoln, who 
wished to have a War Democrat as his running mate rather than Hamlin, who 
had been elected with him in 1860, hoping in this manner to show his spirit 
of conciliation towards the South. Mr. Nickolay, an employee of the White 
House during Lincoln's first administration, and one of Lincoln^s biographers, 
denies the correctness of Colonel McClurc's statement. There is little doubt, 
however, but that Colonel McClure was quite correct. 

[130] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

and of all future ages. * * * Without the right of suf- 
frage in the late slave states I believe the slaves had better 
been left in bondage. * * * Sir, this doctrine of a 'white 
man's government' is as atrocious as that which damned the 
late Chief Justice (Taney) to everlasting fame and, I fear, to 
everlasting fire." 

The situation in the South was now such as to leave Con- 
gress but little choice about the matter of radical reconstruc- 
tion, and it was evident that the freedmen had to be made 
auxiliary in connection with any plan that might be adopted 
if the government entertained the least hope of carrying it 
out. Popular clamor for relief was constantly increasing and 
Congress was compelled to act without delay. On one day 
Senator Sumner presented petitions numerously signed by 
citizens of Massachuetts, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, 
Illinois, New York and New Jersey, in all of which the ex- 
tension of the suffrage to the freedmen was either suggested 
or demanded. The "Black Codes" were still in force, though 
the law abolishing them went into effect the latter part of 
December, 1865. Until the Act abolishing these discriminat- 
ing laws went into effect, colored people were not only not 
allowed to give testimony in court but had absolutely no de- 
fense against the treatment to which they were subjected. 
The first definite steps for the extension of the suffrage were 
taken on December 5, 1865, when Mr. William D. Kelly, of 
Pennsylvania, introduced a bill in the House for the exten- 
sion of the suffrage in the District of Columbia. A similar 
measure was introduced by Mr. Julian on December 11. The 
Kelly measure was taken up by the House and passed Janu- 
ary 18, 1866, by a vote of 116 to 54. 4 This bill was reported 
"by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia on Feb- 
ruary 21, 1866, without amendment; although it was called up 
on June 27, it was not finally disposed of by the Senate until 
the next session, when it was again called up and passed on 
December 13, by a vote of 32 to 27} In the meantime, the op- 
ponents of the measure, determined to get the benefit of the 



4. "When the vote was announced," says the Reporter, "there was great ap- 
plause on the floor and in the galleries." 

5. President Johnson vetoed it, but it was finally passed over his head. 



[131] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

moral effect of a popular vote against it by the white citizens 
of Washington, and so on December 21 they voted on the 
question at a popular election. Mr. Richard Wallach, Mayor 
of Washington, reported the result of this vote to the Presi- 
dent of the Senate on January 5, 1866, as follows: Against 
Negro suffrage 6591 ; for Negro suffrage 35 ; majority against 
the proposition 6556. The Mayor was much elated over the 
result and in closing his report, he said: "The people, claiming 
an independence of thought and the right to express it, have 
thus given a grave and deliberate utterance in an unexagger- 
ated manner to their opinion and feeling on this question." 
But the whole thing fell flat as everybody knew what to ex- 
pect of an old slave mart like Washington ; the election was 
regarded as a farce. Congress finally settled the whole mat- 
ter by depriving the city of its charter and taking the govern- 
ment of the District of Columbia into its own hands as au- 
thorized and empowered to do by the Constitution. The South 
having persisted in its contumacious course, Congress now 
began to consider coercive measures, and to this end a bill 
was introduced in the House on January 5 for the extension 
of the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. When the Bureau 
was first organized only a temporary arrangement was con- 
templated and the Bureau was given few powers which were 
limited and strictly construed; the Act extending its powers 
specifically provided for its continuance until especially abol- 
ished and for the exercise of its functions in behalf of freed- 
men and refugees wherever such persons might be found, and 
conferred upon the Secretary of War authority to issue to 
them clothing, fuel and supplies. Section 3 of the original bill 
was amended so as to provide for setting apart some three 
million acres of land in Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas for 
homes for freedmen upon the payment of a nominal consid- 
eration. General Sherman, by a field order, dated at Savannah, 
January 16, 1865, had put certain lands which he had found 
abandoned along the sea coast of Georgia and South Carolina 
into the possession of freedmen. This naked grant as it stood 
was not only of indefinite duration but was of doubtful va- 
lidity ; the matter was taken up in connection with the Bu- 

n 79i 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

reau Bill, the Sherman order was confirmed and indefeas- 
ible titles were vested in the holders for a term of two years. 
Senator Trumbull, who called the Sherman order up in con- 
nection with the Bureau measure, intended to have these 
titles simply confirmed, but after a long debate it was agreed 
that possession should be limited to two years. 6 The bill also 
provided for the securing of land and erecting thereon 
asylums, schools, etc., for f reedmen ; for putting under mar- 
tial law any state or section where persons of color were 
denied their civil rights ; section 8 of the bill being as follows: 
"And be it further enacted that any person who, under color 
of any state or local law, ordinance, police or other regulation 
or custom, shall in any state or district in which the ordinary 
course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the 
rebellion, subject or cause to be subjected, any Negro, mulat- 
to, freedman or refugee, or any other persons on account of 
race or color or any other cause, to the deprivation of any 
civil right secured to white persons or to any other or differ- 
ent punishment from that to which white persons are sub- 
jected to for the commission of like acts or offences shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine not 
exceeding one thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceed- 
ing one year or both." The Bureau was made responsible for 
the enforcement of the Act under direction of the War De- 
partment. It was especially provided, however, that the Bu- 
reau should yield control of these affairs as soon as the states 
should resume their functions. And although the measure 
was simply intended as a penalty upon the recursancy of the 
South from which they might have had instant relief 
by resuming in good faith their functions as states, the 
measure was most vehemently attacked in Congress espe- 
cially by men from the border states like Kentucky and Dela- 
ware. 7 The border men claimed that such legislation was hu- 
miliating to their states and the Democrats attacked the 

6 Mr Stevens contended that these lands had been forfeited under the Con- 
fiscation Act of 1862; and in any case, the government ought to procure land 
for the freedmen, not exceeding 40 acres. It was in these debates that the 40 
acres of land and a mule for each freedman" was first made prominent. 

7. The bill was passed over the President's veto, July 16, 1866. See Laws of 
U. S., Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 367. 

[133] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

measure generally on the ground that it provided for a use- 
less expenditure of money. Senator Salisbury, of Delaware, 
most eloquently declared that such a law could have no pos- 
sible application to his state. It was a notorious fact, however, 
that there were places even in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, bor- 
dering on the slave states, where the feeling against Negroes 
was so intense that no colored person ever dared to show 
himself, under penalty of the most cruel torture or even 
death. Even unto this day colored people are about as scarce 
in these spots as they are in the north of Europe. Many of 
these places became celebrated for the sport their inhabitants 
enjoyed in the chase after fugitive slaves, driving them 
through woods and fields with clubs and stones until the pant- 
ing fugitive reached the river into which he would often 
plunge to death rather than to be caught and be tortured for 
the amusement of the people and then finally returned to the 
southern marl. 



134 



CHAPTER XVI 



The Necessity for Clothing the Freedmen with Citizenship — The 
Fourteenth Amendment — The Sentiment of the South — The 
First Civil Rights Measure — Sumner's Radicalism — The Stew- 
art Proposition — President Johnson's Plan — The Commission 
to Pay for Slaves of So-Called Loyal Masters. 

The exigencies of the times gradually made it apparent that 
emancipation alone was simply a destructive act ; that the 
quasi protection which colored people had been receiving in 
return for life had been now taken away, leaving them with- 
out security in the enjoyment of either their quasi liberties 
or their lives ; that interposition of the government on behalf 
of the freedmen was absolutely necessary. This intervention 
could be made effective only by placing within the reach of 
the colored people themselves such means of self-help as 
might be afforded by clothing them with citizenship. For, 
however odious the decision of Judge Taney might have 
seemed, it had to stand as law until abrogated or repealed. 
Negroes might have been construed to be citizens by impli- 
cation if they had been in the enjoyment of the priviliges of 
citizens ; but since this was not generally true any more in 
1866 than it had been at the time of the Dred Scott Decision, 
an express Act of Congress was necessary to confer citizen- 
ship. Besides all this, "the three-fifths of all others" clause 
in the Constitution would now have to be left to the con- 
struction of the Supreme Court, which would doubtless have 
found a way out of the difficulty at the expense of the Ne- 
groes, as Taney was not the only genius on that Bench or the 
only one that has graced it since his time, unless the situation 
should be handled by Congress. 

Among the many propositions embodying a Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution was one by James G. 
Blaine, as follows : "Representatives and direct taxes 
shall be apportioned among the several states which 
may be included within this Union according to their re- 

[135] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

spective numbers which shall be determined by taking the 
whole number of persons, except those to whom civil or po- 
litical rights are denied or abridged by the constitutions or 
laws of any state on account of race or color." Against this 
proposition it was argued that it constitutionalized the dis- 
franchisement of a portion of the people ; that while the con- 
stitution and laws of a state might confer pretended rights 
of franchise, the people themselves might seek to determine 
who should exercise such rights. 1 A scheme for the appor- 
tionment of Representatives on the basis of voters was also 
suggested, but as this would affect the northern states as 
much as the South, it gained no favor. The subject had not 
yet reached the stage where the conferring of the suffrage 
on the freedmen was generally advocated with boldness, 
though Mr. Bingham in a discussion of the general subject, 
called attention to the fact that when a motion was made in 
the Confederation Convention of 1778 to limit the citizenship 
by use of the word "white" it was rejected with scorn. He 
added that he "intended by the help of Congress and the 
American people, to have inserted in the Constitution an af- 
firmative declaration abolishing distinctions as to citizenship 
in the United States based on race or color." Such sentiments 
were now beginning to be echoed about both Houses of Con- 
gress, especially since it appeared that President Johnson was 
aiding the South in its stubborn course in regard to recon- 
struction. Senator Howe delivered himself of a fierce attack 
upon Mr. Johnson, whom he jointly arraigned with the South 
in opposing the spirit of the Thirteenth Amendment. Refer- 
ring more particularly to the South, he said: "They mean to 
monopolize, in spite of emancipation, the freedman's labor, 
to control its wages and appropriate its proceeds ; they mean 
to do more ; they mean to convince the American people that 
emancipation was a blunder and a crime. If you who are re- 
sponsible for emancipation ardently desire to be damned for 
it, you have only to place it into the hands of its most relent- 
less enemies to administer and illustrate." Mr. Howe further 
declared that the South would make unremitting efforts to 



1 See Appendix for Supreme Court Decision on this point. 

[136] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

stir up revolt on the part of the blacks and described how 
their papers would be filled with visionary repetitions of the 
horrors of San Domingo, and thought that oppression cun- 
ningly devised and persistently applied might possibly lead 
the freedmen to revolt. 

Another proposition for the apportionment of Representa- 
tives and the one that was finally embodied in the Fourteenth 
Amendment as passed was the one offered by Mr. Roscoe 
Conklin January 15, 1866. Mr. Stevens, who was Chairman 
of the Joint Committee of Fifteen otherwise known as the 
Reconstruction Committee, composed of members of both 
Houses, reported the Conklin proposition on January 22. Mr. 
Conklin ably championed the measure and declared, in answer 
to criticisms such as had been urged in the discussion of the 
Blaine proposition, that "if a race in any state is unfit to vote 
and fit only to drudge, the wealth created by its work ought 
to be taxed ; those who profit by such labor ought to be taxed 
for it." According to the apportionment of 1860 there were 
251 Representatives, 156 from free states and 85 from slave 
states, 18 of the latter representing three-fourths of the 
slaves as follows : 1 each from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, 
Missouri, Tennessee and Texas ; 2 each from Georgia, Louisi- 
ana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Vir- 
ginia. Mr. Conklin was naturally gratified to see his proposi- 
tion adopted, but Mr. Blaine, whose resolution was something 
like that of Mr. Conklin, openly accused the latter of having 
taken the substance of his measure, changed the language 
and then assumed the original authorship. Mr. Conklin, proud 
and sensitive as he was, felt this accusation keenly; and it is 
not unlikely that this incident went far towards precipitating 
the grave breach between these two gentlemen that became 
so openly manifest in after years and which was never healed. 
The Conklin measure, however, did not escape the sharpest 
criticism. It was contended that it left too many loopholes 
through which the South might slip out. In truth, it was very 
much as Mr. Stevens observed: "There were about as many 
theories as there were Representatives," all of which seemed 
to have had some elements of practicability. Some wanted 

[137] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

provisions made forever disfranchising all of those who took 
a leading part in the rebellion. Mr. Jehu Baker, of Illinois, 
strongly urged the insertion of such a provision in a lengthy 
speech in the House, and in connection with his effort, read 
extracts from letters he had received from certain govern- 
ment officials in the South. The following is an extract from 
a letter written by Gov. W. G. Brownlow, of Tennessee. 2 
"There is better feeling in Tennessee than in any other south- 
ern state. * * * I give it as my candid opinion that if 
the military forces were removed from Tennessee the legis- 
lature would be at once dispersed by a rebel mob. * * * 
Rebel juries are indicting Federal soldiers and officers and 
either binding them over to court in heavy bonds or casting 
them into prison for executing orders given them by our 
generals as far back as the days of Rosecrans and Stone 
River ! And many of the rebels speak openly and say Union 
men and Yankees shall not live in the country. * * * I 
believe the South is full of rebellion and is seeking to accom- 
plish by legislation and through Congress what it failed to do 
on the field of carnage — destroy the government." The fol- 
lowing is extracted from a letter written by A. J. Fletcher, 
another prominent official of Tennessee : "The sympthizers 
with the 'just but lost cause,' will form a compact party in this 
state held together by hatred of those whom they have 
branded as Tories for deserting the South in her extremity, 
by a determination to keep the Negro in a condition as near 
slavery as possible and probably by a desire to keep the South 
united with a view to ulterior designs. The loyal people hav- 
ing seen the great object of saving the Union accomplished, 
will not contest seriously for mastery of the state. They 
will remain loyal to the great Union party of the nation, but 
in a subdued and discouraged temper. Many will yield and 
go with the vast majority. * * * These are consequences 
almost certain to follow the abandonment of the loyal people 
by the general government." People of the present day know 
how completely this prophecy of Mr. Fletcher has been ful- 



2. Mr. Brownlow was a native of Tennessee, but was bitterly opposed to 
secession and for this he was expelled. He returned just after the war and 
was made Governor by the Reconstructionists. 



[138] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

filled in the complete banishment of the Republican party 
from the South. But all these things worked themselves out 
by perfectly natural and even normal processes. On the 
question of slavery the South was solid before the war and 
since the war everything has conduced to the maintenance of 
this solidity. Feeling of resentment towards a victor is nat- 
urally to be expected on the part of the vanquished ; and such 
feeling in connection with the changed status of the colored 
people in their midst, tended to cause all southerners to unite 
in a common fight against the Republican party which was 
looked upon as being responsible for the whole matter. The 
permanent occupation of the South by the Federal militia 
was out of the question ; still this was about the only means 
by which a lasting control of affairs by the "Union party," to 
which reference is made by Mr. Fletcher, could ever be se- 
cured. While the suffering of the freedmen could not be en- 
tirely avoided after the withdrawal of the militia, the govern- 
ment determined to put them within reach of such assistance 
and protection as being clothed with citizenship might afford 
and then leave them to work out their own destiny. To this 
end Senator Trumbull, on January 5, 1866, introduced a bill 
providing for the securing of civil rights to the freedmen as 
the first step in the direction of conferring upon them the 
rights of citizens. When this bill came up for discussion 
Senator Salisbury (Democrat), of Delaware, endeavored to 
have it so amended as to prohibit any extension of the suf- 
frage, desiring, as he said, to test the sense of the Senate on 
the question of the right of Negroes to vote and contending 
that any measure conferring civil rights, carried the right to 
vote by implication. The measure passed the Senate February 
2, by a vote of 33 to 12, and after some unimportant amend- 
ments, was taken up and passed by the House March 13, by 
an overwhelming majority. President Johnson vetoed it, but 
the measure was passed over his veto. 3 

The Apportionment Bill, which became Section 2 of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, as it came from the House, was not 
satisfactory to the more radical members of either branch of 



3. See U. S. Laws, Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 316. 

[139] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Congress. The radicals wanted a measure so sweeping and 
conclusive as to leave no room for judicial quibbling or con- 
struction. In opening the debate on it in the Senate on Feb- 
ruary 5, Mr. Sumner attacked the whole thing as a compro- 
mise and offered the following in support of which he made 
one of his exhaustive speeches of two days' length : "Where- 
as it is provided in the Constitution of the United States that 
the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union 
a Republican form of government ; and whereas by reason of 
the failure of certain states to maintain governments which 
Congress might recognize, it has become the duty of the 
United States standing in the place of guarantor where the 
principal has made a lapse, to secure to such states according 
to the requirements of the guarantee, governments Republi- 
can in form, and whereas it is further provided in a recent 
constitutional amendment that Congress may enforce the 
prohibition of slavery by appropriate legislation and it is im- 
portant to this end that all relics of slavery should be re- 
moved, including all distinctive rights on account of color: 
Now therefore to carry out the guarantee of a Republican 
form of government and to enforce the prohibition of slavery, 
be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representa- 
tives that there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste or 
monopoly invested with peculiar privileges and powers, and 
there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account 
of color or race anywhere within the limits of the United 
States or the jurisdiction thereof, but all persons shall be 
equal before the law whether in the court room or at the bal- 
lot box. And this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitu- 
tion shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the 
constitutions or laws of any state to the contrary nothwith- 
standing." After this effort by Mr. Sumner, test votes were 
useless in determining where he stood on the suffrage ques- 
tion. Perhaps it would be too much to say that Mr. Sumner 
converted any of his colleagues by his speech, still it can 
hardly be doubted that his boldness and radicalism tended to 
stiffen the backbones of many. Mr. Henderson offered an 
amendment to the Sumner bill to the effect that there should 

[140] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

be no discrimination in political rights on account of color 
which was lost by a vote of 37 to 10. Mr. Sumner's whole 
proposition failed by a vote of 39 to 8, whereupon he sought 
to have passed a measure forever excluding from taxation 
any who might be disfranchised under the provisions of the 
original House bill for which his measure had been offered as 
a substitute, but his efforts in this direction were also without 
support. Mr. Sumner and his small coterie of colleagues were 
able, however, to defeat the main bill when the first vote was 
taken upon it by joining with the Democrats, the vote being 
25 in favor of it to 22 against it ; to adopt it required a two- 
thirds vote in the majority. On reconsidering the vote by 
which the measure was defeated, Senator Doolittle offered an 
amendment to the effect that after 1870 the apportionment 
should be made according to the number of male electors in 
each state over the age of 21 years, qualified by the laws of 
the state to choose members of the most numerous branch 
of Congress, etc. Some, like Senator Sherman, thought well 
of the proposition with the "1870" stricken out. At this time 
Negroes were denied the right to vote in nearly all of the 
states, and had the Sherman-Doolittle proposition carried it 
would have been necessary for the several states to have 
made specific provisions extending the franchise in order to 
have avoided the effect upon their representation. The con- 
sequences of this in the North, however, would not have been 
seriously felt immediately, as in many parts the colored 
people were not enumerated as a part of the basis of repre- 
sentation, while the South would have lost only the benefit 
of the constitutional three-fifths allowed for its slaves. At all 
events it was argued that the measure gave the several states 
a deliberate choice as to who should have the right of fran- 
chise ; this was the main objection urged against the Conkhn 
proposition as it came from the House. The radicals looked 
upon it as a step backward, inasmuch as each state already 
had the right to prescribe the qualifications of its voters and 
Negroes were recognized as neither qualified voters nor citi- 
zens. During the whole long debate on this Apportionment 
Bill, amendment after amendment was offered and a suf- 

[141] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ficient number of germain propositions were welded together 
to form what subsequently was adopted as a Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution. 

Viewing this splendid amendment to the Constitution as it 
now stands, one can hardly imagine the chaos and confusion 
out of which it was evolved. There were propositions reflect- 
ing every shade of opinion and theory concerning reconstruc- 
tion, from efforts to permanently disfranchise prominent 
rebels to efforts to enfranchise the freedmen ; and it is doubt- 
ful whether any other part of the Constitution was ever so 
thoroughly debated before its adoption as the Fourteenth 
Amendment. Among the propositions in this connection that 
caused an extended debate in themselves, was a series of 
resolutions offered by Senator Stewart. These resolutions 
proposed to recognize the rebellious states as having fully 
and validly resumed their relations to the government when 
their constitutions should be so amended as to do away with 
all distinctions as to civil rights, etc., among the various 
classes of their people on account of race or color ; second, to 
repudiate all pecuniary indebtedness which said states might 
have incurred or assumed in connection with the rebellion ; 
third, to yield all claims to compensation for the liberation of 
the slaves ; fourth, to provide for the extension of the elective 
franchise to all persons upon the same terms and conditions, 
making no discrimination on account of color, race, etc. The 
resolutions also set forth the fact that the states were respect- 
fully requested to incorporate these provisions in their con- 
stitutions and denied any intention to coerce them in any 
manner, the matter being left to "the good sense and love of 
country" on the part of the southern people. Previous to this 
effusion, Senator Stewart had been going the furthest in his 
opposition to radical reconstruction and in putting forth his 
resolutions he said that he desired to make them conform to 
President Johnson's idea of reconstruction. That Senator 
Stewart, in this movement, reflected many of the ideas of Mr. 
Johnson can hardly be doubted. Aside from his numerous 
veto messages. Mr. Johnson gave voice to his opinion in re- 
gard to the situation in public speeches and letters to his 

[142] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

friends as will be shown by a letter written by him to Gover- 
nor Sharkey, of Mississippi, under date of August 15, 1865. 
After expressing his gratification at seeing the organization 
of the convention called by Mr. Sharkey for the consideration 
of the matter of reconstruction in that state, the President 
said: "I hope you will amend your constitution abolishing 
slavery and denying to all future legislatures the power to 
legislate that there is property in man. * * * If you could 
extend the elective franchise to all persons of color who can 
read the Constitution of the United States in English and 
write their names, and to all persons of color who own real 
estate valued at not less than $250, and pay taxes thereon, 
you would completely disarm the adversary. * * * This 
you can do with perfect safety and thus place the southern 
states, with reference to free persons of color, on the same 
basis as the free states. I hope and trust you will do this, and, 
as a consequence, the radicals who are wild upon the Negro 
franchise, will be completely foiled." 4 

During President's Lincoln's time there had been so much 
talk about paying for the loss of slaves, etc., and, indeed, 
some actual progress made in that direction, that it was now 
determined to pass laws against making such payments in 
future and also specifically repudiating all debts incurred by 
the Confederacy on account of the war lest these obliga- 
tions should be saddled upon the government as soon as 
the seceded states rejoined the Union. Under the Act of Feb- 
ruary 24, 1864, by which it was provided that slave owners 
who were loyal to the Union should be paid bounty money for 
such slaves as might be employed in the Union army, etc., 
commissions were appointed in Delaware and Maryland for 
the settlement of such claims. The Maryland Commission re- 
ceived 3867 such claims and awarded the sum of $250,750 to 
some 786 claimants, 25 of whom were paid a total of $6,900. 
The Delaware Commission awarded $11,853, on 43 claims, but 
nothing was ever paid to these claimants. Both commissions 
had since been dissolved; the Delaware Commission having 
been dissolved in July, 1865, and that for Maryland in October 



4. Globe, First Session Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 1437. 

[143] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

of the same year. It was understood in some quarters or at 
least it was claimed by some, that in order to keep the border 
states in line with the Union, or at least neutral, President 
Lincoln had given them reason to believe that they should 
lose nothing on account of slavery, however the war might 
terminate. But whether there was any assurance given slave- 
holders of the border states to the effect that they should 
have pay for the loss of their slaves or not, it is true that 
some of them began to pass laws providing for payment for 
emancipated slaves soon after the Emancipation Act went 
into effect. 5 

Senator Trumbull's Civil Rights bill having been reported 
during the pendency of the Apportionment Bill, some of its 
main features were incorporated with the latter and passed as 
a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 
the Senate by a vote of 31 to 11, on June 8, 1866; the House 
passed this important measure by a vote of 120 to 32 on June 
13, 1866. The Amendment was duly enrolled and filed with 
the State Department on June 16 and on the same day Con- 
gress passed a resolution directing the President to transmit 
copies of the same to the Governors and legislatures of the 
several states for adoption by them, which they did in due 
course of time. 6 

Previous to the Civil War all colored people in the United 
States who were not regarded as property were regarded as 
pariahs. In the slave states they were considered as property. 
In the State of Pennsylvania, where to-day the laws are not 
only made but administered with as much fairness and impar- 
tiality as in any state in the Union, there may be found among 
its old statutes some laws as barbarous in their discrimina- 
tions against Negroes as were ever passed by South Carolina. 7 
So it appears that when Pennsylvania had slaves her people 
generally thought and acted like other slave-holders. And so 
it was with Mr. Johnson from the slave-holding state of 

5. Laws of Maryland, March 10, 1864. t>„„:j„,« 

6 The Thirteenth Amendment was presented to and approved by 1 resident 
Lincoln, but this was neither necessary nor strictly in accordance with cus- 
tom The point was raised and settled by the Supreme Court in 1/98. For ull 
discussion of subject s<Te Globe, First Session Thirty-ninth Congress, pp. 3198, 
etc The Fourteenth Amendment was declared in force on July ZS, 1M>». 
7.' Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, 1712 to 1730, by Mitchell and I- landers. 

[144] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Tennessee. Any legislation that even tended to destroy the 
meanest sort of discrimination between the white and colored 
people seemed to him to be not only outrageous but insane. 
The Trumbull Civil Rights bill was, in President Johnson's 
view, an anomaly ; and after it was passed by Congress and 
was sent to him for approval he did not hesitate to veto it. 
After expressing his disapproval of the measure on the 
ground that it was an invasion of the rights of states as well 
as being discriminative as between colored Americans and 
foreigners, he said : "Yet it is now proposed by a single legis- 
lative enactment to confer the rights of citizenship upon all 
persons of African descent within the extended limits of the 
United States, while all persons of foreign birth who make 
our land their home must undergo a probation of five years 
and then can become citizens only on proof of their good 
moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution 
of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and 
happiness of the same. The first section of the bill also con- 
tains an enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these 
classes of so made citizens in every state and territory of the 
United States. These rights are to make and enforce con- 
tracts, to sue and be parties to suits, and give evidence, to in- 
herit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey property real and 
personal, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and 
proceedings for the security of person and property as is en- 
joyed by white citizens; so, too, they are made subject to the 
same punishment and penalties in common w T ith white citi- 
zens and to none others. Thus a perfect equality of the white 
and black races is attempted to be fixed by Federal law in 
every state of the Union over the vast field of state jurisdic- 
tion covered by these enumerated rights. In no one of these 
can a state exercise the power of discrimination between the 
different races. In exercising matters of state policy over 
matters exclusively affecting the people of such state it has 
frequently been thought expedient to discriminate between 
the two races." Thus Mr. Johnson, by the grace of an un- 
happy accident, President of the United States, expressed 
himself with frankness and innocent simplicity. When his 

[145] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

message was announced at the door of the Senate, Senator 
Wilson immediately moved an adjournment ; and while the 
motion was not pressed, it was intended to be anything but 
complimentary to the President. On April 6, the Senate 
passed the measure over the President's veto, by a vote of 
33 to 15, being something more than the requisite two-thirds 
majority. The House voted on it on April 9, when it was 
passed by that body by 122 to 41. And thus the Trumbull Civil 
Rights bill, the first of its kind, became law, the President's 
objections notwithstanding. 



[146] 



CHAPTER XVII 



The Ku Klux Outrages — Re-enslavement of Freedmen Under the 
Black Codes — Discrimination in Courts of Law — The Colorado 
Constitution Attacked by Sumner — The Admission of Tennes- 
see — The Admission of Nebraska. 

There were trying times in the South for the freedmen dur- 
ing the years 1866-67. The fierce cruelty, always characteris- 
tic of slave-holders, which invested the southern whites with 
a sort of picturesque barbarity had been intensified by the re- 
cent conflict. There is no law but mob law under which men 
can ever be held as slaves. And while the mob in the South 
was no longer recognized as legal, still it remained supreme. 
Slave-holders for so long oppressed their victims with terror 
and were terrified by those whom they oppressed that they 
lost all notions of government except by terrorizing. The 
mob government of the late slave states having became ille- 
gal, the outside world first began to count those falling under 
its sway as victims of outrages in about 1867. Between the 
Ku Klux Klan and the Black Laws, the South was not only 
prepared to make emancipation appear to be a failure, but to 
show it up as the greatest crime in modern history. And so 
it would have been had Congress sat supinely by while the 
freedmen, turned out without a cent, were being sold into 
slavery for vagrancy under the Black Codes or were left to 
starve by the roadside if unable to work ; and while young 
men, veterans returning with scars and wounds received in 
defense of the nation, were being pursued by night and by 
day and shot to death one by one. And all of this was hap- 
pening after the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Amendments. The political party that was responsible for 
emancipation was compelled to go further in the direction of 
the completion of its work on penalty of being branded with 
infamy, and in doing this it was compelled to make auxiliaries 
of the freedmen. While it is doutbless true that men like 

[147] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Sumner and Stevens, who championed the cause of the op- 
pressed when the good of party was not a factor and when 
there was neither promise nor hope of reward other than the 
scorn and contumely of their colleagues, needed no com- 
pelling force other than their sense of duty, nevertheless it 
would have been practically impossible to have gotten 
through Congress such legislation as the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment and the Civil Rights Act, in the absence of such compli- 
cations as before mentioned. As the outrages against the 
freedmen and their white friends in the South showed no 
abatement, no attention being paid to the ordinary laws or 
the decrees of Congress, the government, on January 8, 1866, 
decided to maintain a military force in that section until both 
Houses of Congress should decree that such was no longer 
necessary. 

The organization known as the Ku Klux Klan represented 
the climax of anti-Negro sentiment on the part of the white 
people of the South. This powerful and well organized mob 
was but the outgrowth of older organizations formed for the 
purpose of creating and propagating pro-slavery sentiments 
and extending the influence of the slave power, in spite of 
Federal laws. And so the Ku Klux outrages, so full of ingenu- 
ity and replete with systematic method, did not spring from 
hastily devised or spontaneous combinations of ruffians who 
were offended because of the freedom and citizenship of the 
colored people, but were carefully planned and to some extent 
developed by these older organizations which coalesced and 
assumed a new name. It is said that the "Knights of the 
Golden Circle," "Knights of the Columbian Star" and even be- 
fore these, the "Knights of the Lone Star," organized for the 
purpose of securing Cuba, Mexico and Central America, with 
a view to extending slavery, had, at the time of the war, ex- 
tended their lodges, grips and passwords over all the South 
and a good portion of the northern states adjacent. 1 

A resolution was introduced in the House on January 8, 
1866, by Mr. John A. Kasson, declaratory of the meaning of 
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and making it 



1. American Conflict. 

[148] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

unlawful for colored people to be treated differently from any- 
other citizens. In connection with this resolution, he had read 
from the desk, clippings taken from certain Maryland news- 
papers as follows :"The undersigned will offer for sale at the 
Court House door in the city of Annapolis, at 11 o'clock A. M. 
on Saturday, December 22, 1865, a Negro named John John- 
son, age about 40 years. Said Negro was convicted at the 
October Term, 1865, of the Circuit Court of Arundel County, 
of larceny and sentenced to be sold. William Bryan, Sheriff." 
"Baltimore, December 24, four Negroes convicted of larceny 
and ordered to be sold by Judge Magruder, at Annapolis, 
were sold last Saturday." 2 The discrimination against Negroes 
by the courts in the South was then and still is notorious. 3 
But to attempt to treat of or to follow up discrimination by 
courts against colored people would require many volumes 
and one would find himself wandering far from THE QUES- 
TION BEFORE CONGRESS. 

After the surrender of Lee, the Confederate soldier con- 
tinued his open war against the freedmen with little or no 
abatement of ardor. Colored veterans of the Union army who 
returned home in search of their wives and children were 
especially selected as victims of this continued warfare ; their 
knocks at the gate of their former owners were often re- 
sponded to with a bullet ; and the families of those who left 
the old homesteads were pursued, terrorized and often mur- 
dered. The following extract from the official report made to 

2. Globe, First Session Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 345. 

3 "When the Courts wherein we are practicing were opened in middle 
Georgia, after the war, it was idle to carry any case of a Negro before a jury 
of whites We witnessed such an unbroken succession of adverse verdicts 
against colored litigants that, as Jefferson did over slavery, we trembled for 
our people when we reflected that God is just and that His justice would not 
forever sleep."— Reed's Practical Suggestions on Management of Law Suits, p. 
66 "Comes Out of Tail After Twenty Years' Imprisonement —Special to 
Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta, Ga., August 22, 1897-Twenty years ago a ro- 
bust young colored man, named George Brown, was convicted in the Courts ot 
Columbus for stealing a game rooster and was sentenced to twenty years in 
the penitentiary. To-day he is free again, but is old and gray and bent with 
infirmities. He has been to his old home in Muscogee County, and was there 
given a reception that dazed him. His daughter, whom he left a baby, has 
grown up and is married. He inquired for the pastor of his church and was 
told that he has been dead fourteen years. Others whom he asked for had 
been forgotten and there was no one to care for him, no one who even knew 
him. He talked about the war as though it was a recent event He did not 
know who was President of the United States, and had never heard of Mc- 
Kinley He asserts positively that he did not steal the chicken and he wanted 
to find the judge that sentenced him to tell him so, but the judge was dead. 
See also "TKe Silent South," by G. W. Cable (1895), pp. 19-20. 

[149] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Congress on the subject and read before the Senate by Sena- 
tor Wilson, February 15, 1867, will give some slight idea of 
the situation: 4 "From April, 1866, to December, 1866, the re- 
port showed as follows : In Virginia, murders 18, outrages 
105; North Carolina, murders 15, outrages 86; South Carolina, 
murders 29, outrages 64; Georgia, murders 79, outrages not 
reported. There were also reported 34 murders in Mississippi, 
19 in Kentucky and 84 in Texas." This report did not include 
the outrages committed in the latter states, nor, indeed, but 
a small percentage of the murders and outrages committed 
in the South during the short period which it undertook to 
cover. 

Perhaps no word ever operated with more potent effect nor 
figured more prominently in the laws and statutes of any 
country than the word "white" in the constitutions and laws 
of the various states of the Union. This term was not in- 
serted in these instruments in contemplation of the slaves 
who were held in subjection by force and not by law, but to 
affect the status of the free colored people so as to make 
their condition as nearly like that of the slaves as possible. 
In some of the states the complexion as a basis of the law 
was considerably spun out and refined ; this was especially 
the case in Ohio, where all having not more than one-eighth 
Negro blood might vote. Generally, however, those known as 
having the least strain of Negro blood were classed as Ne- 
groes and the very name "Negro" was sufficient to exclude 
one from all rights and privileges or even protection under 
the laws of most of the states. Among the first demands 
made, therefore, by the radicals in Congress, upon the states 
seeking readmission to the Union, and heralded forth as a 
condition precedent, was one to the effect that state constitu- 
tions should recognize no discriminations based upon the 
color or race of the citizens. But notwithstanding this widely 
published fact, when the Territory of Colorado presented it- 
self for admission as a state in April, 1866, its constitution 
was punctuated with this objectionable term from beginning 
to end ; the word "white" seemed to have been used early and 

4. Globe, Second Session, Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 1376. 

[150] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

often for the very purpose of emphasis. Senator Sumner and 
his radical colleagues opposed the measure with great vigor ; 
all of them, however, did not base their opposition on the 
same ground as that of Sumner, who declared that the terri- 
tory ought not to be allowed to come into the Union until 
its people should "recognize the Declaration of Independ- 
ence;" some others based their opposition upon the ground 
that the territory was too sparsely settled. This was the sec- 
ond time the Colorado bill had been before the Senate, the 
matter having been laid aside the first time. The motion now 
was for the reconsideration of the motion by which the ques- 
tion had been laid aside, and, the Senate having agreed to re- 
consider it by a decided majority— there having been only 14 
votes in the negative — Senator Sumner offered to amend the 
resolution for the admission of the territory as follows: 
"Provided, That this Act shall not take effect except upon 
the fundamental condition that within the state there shall be 
no denial of the elective franchise or any other rights on ac- 
count of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before 
the law, and the people of the territory shall, by a majority 
of the voters therein, at such places and under such regula- 
tions as may be prescribed by the government thereof, de- 
clare their assent to this fundamental condition, and the Gov- 
ernor shall transmit to the President of the United States an 
authentic statement of such assent whenever the same shall 
have been given, upon receipt whereof, he shall by proclama- 
tion announce the fact ; whereupon without any further pro- 
ceedings on the part of Congress, this Act shall go into 
effect." When the yeas and nays were called for on this 
amendment only seven Senators voted in the affirmative 
while twenty-seven voted against it. There being no other 
amendment offered, the vote recurred on the main proposi- 
tion as originally submitted and this was adopted by a vote 
of 19 to 13 on April 25, 1866. President Johnson vetoed the 
bill on the ground that the population of the territory did not 
warrant its admission, and there the matter rested for the 
time being. 

On the 6th of March the Reconstruction Committee, 

[151] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

through Mr. Bingham, reported a bill for the readmis- 
sion of Tennessee, which had adopted a constitution 
which seemed about as inconsistent with a Republican form 
of government as the Colorado constitution ; though the 
preamble set forth that the state had adopted a constitution 
Republican in form, every section of the instrument intended 
to define the political or civil rights of the citizens com- 
menced with the phrase "every white man," etc. It is true 
that the document pretended to exclude the "brigadier" gen- 
erals of the Confederacy and also faintly argued for the dis- 
franchisement of the "disloyal," still it blankly denied the 
right of franchise to every colored man. 

The fact that this constitution was unsatisfactory to some 
of the Reconstruction Committee only tends to show that 
those who favored the immediate and unconditional exten- 
sion of the franchise to the freedmen were in the minority; 
and if the extension of the suffrage was effected too early 
when it was extended, the persistent opposition in Congress 
on the part of those who objected to all legislation which was 
intended to give the freedmen reasonable protection against 
the atrocities then being perpetrated against them in the 
South, is responsible for it. Then, too, there was needed 
some assurance that the men sent as Representatives from 
the South would not be rank secessionists who would be in- 
clined to join the "Copperheads" or those from the North who 
supported secession and thus effectually block reconstruction. 
The government of the southern states for the time being 
was, therefore, turned over to "Carpet-baggers," who, with 
the assistance of the freedmen proceeded to reconstruct the 
state governments. 

The report of the Reconstruction Committee favoring the 
readmission of Tennessee with a constitution denying all 
rights to her colored citizens, was vigorously attacked by the 
radicals. Tennessee was the first of the seceded states to offer 
to return and there was a feeling of great satisfaction in the 
thought that Congress had at last struck upon a basis of re- 
construction that might prove to be generally acceptable. 
While the matter was under consideration in the House Mr. 

[152] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE ' CONGRESS 

Stevens endeavored to have the seceded states compelled to 
adopt the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition precedent to 
their readmission, but his effort failed. When the matter was 
taken up by the Senate Committee it was at once favorably 
acted upon and reported to the Senate. In its report, the com- 
mittee dwelt upon and, to many, seemed to magnify the loy- 
alty of Tennessee, notwithstanding the restrictions mention- 
ed in its constitution. . 

The preamble of the resolutions so highly commending 
Tennessee for her loyalty was at once attacked by Senator 
Sumner for its falsity, as he viewed it. On the other hand, 
Senator Sherman was enthusiastic for the adoption of the 
whole matter as presented. Referring to Mr. Sumner's re- 
marks, Mr. Sherman said : "I know my friend from Massa- 
chusetts (Mr. Sumner) and my friend from Missouri (Mr. 
Brown) do not think Tennessee will be in harmony with re- 
lation to the general government until she allows Negroes to 
vote. We come, then, to the bare and simple proposition that 
we must require these states to allow colored persons to vote. 
Are we prepared to make that issue?" "I am," retorted Mr. 
Brown. Mr. Sumner accomplished the defeat of the adoption 
of this preamble and promptly moved the following amend- 
ment to the measure as his answer to the challenge of Mr. 
Sherman : "Provided, That this (Act admitting this state) 
shall not take effect except upon the fundamental condition, 
that within the state there shall be no denial of the elective 
franchise or any other right on account of color or race, but 
all persons shall be equal before the law ; and the legislature 
of the state by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of 
the state to this fundamental condition, and shall transmit to 
the President of the United States an authentic copy of such 
assent whenever the same shall have been adopted, upon the 
prompt receipt whereof he shall, by proclamation, announce 
the fact, whereupon, without any further proceedings on the 
part of Congress, this joint resolution shall take effect." Only 
four voted for this proposition — Sumner, Brown, Pomeroy 
and Wade. And when the vote recurred on the main proposi- 
tion to admit the state, there were only four votes in the 

[153] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

negative — Sumner, Brown, Pomeroy and Wade. The meas- 
ure having been duly approved by the President, July 24, 
1866, Tennessee once more became one of the states of the 
Union. 

The Territory of Nebraska now applied for admission. 
Senator Wade had charge of the matter and in reply to a 
question by Senator Sumner as to her claims for being recog- 
nized as a state, said that there was nothing to which objec- 
tion might be made except the clause in her constitution 
which restricted the elective franchise to white men. But, as 
in the case of Tennessee, the territory was admitted without 
being required to change her constitution in respect to the 
suffrage. Opposition to the measure in the House was about 
as feeble as that manifested by the Senate ; there seemed to 
have been no decided disposition to fight and but little more 
to vote, the measure having been passed by a vote of 62 to 52. 
There was no great eagerness on the part of members to ac- 
cept Senator Sherman's issue on the freedmen's right to vote 
at that particular time ; they wanted to see which way the 
November elections were going before taking any decided 
stand. 

The territories of Nebraska and Colorado were the last to 
be admitted into the Union carrying evidence in their funda- 
mental law of discriminations directed in plain language 
against colored people. Soon after this time Congress passed 
a law applicable to all the territories in the Union, prohibiting 
any discrimination on account of color in the use of the elect- 
ive franchise. 5 



S. Became law January 14, 1867 by lapse of time, the President having failed 
to sign it or to return it to Congress with his disapproval. 



[154] 



CHAPTER XVIII 



Destitution Among Negroes Who Followed the Army to Washing- 
ton—Bill for Their Relief— The Founding of Hillsdale, D. C— 
Property and Funds in the Hands of the Freedmen's Bureau — 
Stevens' Proposition to Give Freedmen Heads of Families 40 
Acres of Land — President Johnson Arraigns Congress — Con- 
gress Takes Official Notice of the President's Attitude — The 
Status of Seceded States in Elections of 1868— Party Platforms 
and Candidates — The Election of Grant — The Fifteenth Amend- 
ment and Its History — Sumner's Substitution for the Fifteenth 
Amendment — Sumner Attacked in Debates by Colleagues — His 
Defense of Himself. 

During the winter of 1867-8 there was great suffering 
among the destitute colored people in the District of Colum- 
bia who had come from all parts of the South, following the 
Federal army until its arrival at Washington. When the army- 
halted for the grand review many of the freedmen who had 
been following them became stranded and could go no fur- 
ther. Not only was the spectacle of this destitute horde of 
humanity at the national capital annoying, but the way they 
crowded themselves into old barracks, etc., for shelter, be- 
came a nuisance and a danger to the public health and morals. 
These poor freedmen were totally ignorant of both sanitary 
and hygienic laws ; and, indeed, being piled upon the floors of 
half torn down buildings and old barracks, as they were, was 
scarcely regarded as a hardship by many who had often 
shivered on the damp dirt floors of the slave pen. Continuous 
life under such conditions in a city like Washington, however, 
could not be tolerated, and so the matter was speedily taken 
up by Congress, and a bill was introduced in the House on 
February 25, 1868, for their relief. General O. O. Howard had 
a large sum at his disposal through the Freedmen's Bureau, 
but it could not be used to give relief in this particular case, 
even had it been adequate, in view of the constant demands 
being made upon his appropriation to supply other thousands 
of white and colored people whom the war had left destitute 
in the South. The bill for relief in this case carried an appro- 

[155] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

priation of fifteen thousand dollars to be disbursed under the 
direction of General Howard, but with the understanding that 
those receiving help should render some service in return; in 
other words, the scheme was to give employment to the will- 
ing freedmen and large numbers of them were accordingly- 
set to work on the streets and highways of the city. Com- 
missaries and soup houses were established to supply food 
and better lodgings were secured. 

Another happy scheme conceived by General Howard in 
this emergency was the founding of a colony of colored set- 
tlers. The Bureau had already come into possession of a 
large tract of land situated on the northern boundary of 
Washington, known as Smith's farm, where it had estab- 
lished Howard University. General Howard now acquired a 
large piece of land situated on the south side of the eastern 
branch of the Potomac for his colony and placed Captain 
James B. Johnson, a most rigid disciplinarian and a gentle- 
man of singular business tact and ability, in charge of the 
laying out and development of the settlement, which was 
named Hillsdale. Mr. Johnson engaged some three hundred 
freedmen to do the work, but the contract under which they 
were employed stipulated that each man should apply a por- 
tion of his wages to the purchase of a homestead in the vil- 
lage upon which he had to construct a suitable dwelling. 
There was to be indulgence in neither drinking nor other un- 
becoming habits among the workmen or settlers on pain of 
being immediately dismissed. Mr. Johnson found it necessary 
to discharge many of his workmen under these Puritanic 
rules, but the ranks were quickly filled by others willing to 
submit to the test. By this sifting-out process the best ma- 
terial was secured for the colony and until this day much if 
not most of this property is in the hands of these settlers or 
their descendants. Some of these men became the best known 
truck farmers in the District of Columbia and at present 
Hillsdale is one of the most prosperous suburbs of Washing- 
ton. 

According to official reports made to the War Department 
in 1867, the Freedmen's Bureau had in its possession or under 

[156] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

its control 272,231 acres of land and 1119 pieces of city prop- 
erty, besides a balance of $282,383 of what was known as the 
Freedmen's Fund, consisting of back pay and unclaimed 
bounty money belonging to colored soldiers, etc. The most of 
the land had fallen into the hands of the Bureau on account 
of its having been abandoned by owners who had absconded 
during the war. Under the Homestead Act, passed in 1866, 
the government placed millions of acres of land at the dis- 
posal of the homeless and poor at a nominal price per acre, 
but the war had so prostrated affairs that many of the white 
people, even, were utterly powerless to come into possession 
of enough ground to establish farms of a reasonable size. As 
for the average Negro, the price of five dollars per acre put 
the property out of reach as effectually as though it had been 
fifty dollars. 

Early in the spring of 1867, March 11, Mr. Stevens intro- 
duced a set of resolutions for the enforcement of the Confis- 
cation Act of July 17, 1862, with preamble as follows : 
"Whereas it is due to justice, as an example to future times, 
that some proper pain should be inflicted on the people who 
constituted the 'Confederate States of America,' both be- 
cause they declared an unjust war against the United States 
for the purpose of destroying republican liberty and perma- 
nently establish slavery, as well as for the cruel and barbar- 
ous manner in which they conducted said war, in violation of 
all rules of civilized warfare, and also to compel them to 
make compensation for the damage and expense caused by 
said war, therefore : Be it enacted that all public lands be- 
longing to the ten states that formed the so-called 'Confeder- 
ate States of America,' shall be forfeited by said states and 
become vested forthwith in the United States." The measure 
further provided as follows : Section 2, that the President 
should proceed at once to condemn the property forfeited 
under the aforesaid Act of July 17, 1862; section 3, that a 
commission of appraisers be appointed to appraise said prop- 
erty ; section 4, that the land so seized and condemned should 
be distributed among the slaves who had been made free by 
the war and constitutional amendments, and who were resid- 

[157] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ing on said land on the 4th of March, 1861, or since: to each 
head of a family 40 acres ; to each adult male whether head 
of a family or not, 40 acres ; to each widow, head of a family, 
40 acres ; to be held by them in fee simple, but to be inalien- 
able for ten years after they should become so seized there- 
of. Section 5 provided for the raising of the sum of fifty dol- 
lars for each homesteader, to be used for the erection of a 
building on his homestead ; and that the further sum of five 
hundred million dollars be raised for the purpose of pension- 
ing the veterans of the Union army. The bill contained sev- 
eral other sections dealing with the subject in connection with 
the main features as above set forth. 

Mr. Stevens called up this measure for consideration by the 
House on March 19, when he made one of his characteristic 
speeches, brilliant and pungent ; age seems never to have had 
any effect upon his mental vigor nor any tendency to modify 
his sharp invectives. Said he : "I am about to discuss the 
question of pain of belligerent traitors.* * * The pain of 
traitors has been wholly ignored by a treacherous executive 
and a sluggish Congress. * * * I wish to makes an issue 
before the American people and see whether they will sanc- 
tion the perfect impunity of a murderous belligerent and con- 
sent that loyal men of this nation who have been despoiled of 
their property shall remain without remuneration, either by 
rebel property of the property of the nation. To this issue I 
desire to devote the small remainder of my life. * * * No 
committee or party is responsible for this bill. Whatever 
merit it possesses is due to Andrew Johnson and myself." On 
the whole, this was one of Mr. Stevens' most eloquent efforts, 
though he delivered a great many speeches during his stir- 
ring and eventful career in the House and in public life gen- 
erally. Mr. Stevens' blazing speech kindled such a fire that 
it formed the text for subsequent speeches by other members 
for some time afterwards as many members seemed anxious 
to get on record with a speech so that it might be known just 
how they stood in relation to the matter, apparently afraid to 
keep silent lest it might be said that they agreed with the 
"Old Commoner" as Mr. Stevens was called. This bill never 

[158] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

became a law, but it was not because Mr. Stevens did not "de- 
vote the small remainder of his life" to the issue. He was 
the father of the idea and the sponsor for the bill which faded 
and fell when its author died in 1868. But the idea of provid- 
ing each freedman with forty acres of land, etc., was no hoax 
or ruse on the part of the Republican party to decoy the 
freedmen into that organization as they were told after the 
scheme had failed. And the discussion relative to the matter 
also touched on the feasibility of providing these freedmen 
with certain farming utensils and a mule or a horse. 

The sarcastic allusion to President Johnson made by Mr. 
Stevens shows how continuously the breach between the 
executive and the legislative branches of the government 
widened until each department held the other in contempt. 
In his annual address, President Johnson arraigned Congress 
in the most bitter terms ; he even went to the extent of char- 
acterizing the national legislature as a body of "deliberate 
Constitution violators." On several occasions he had advised 
the seceded states to disregard Congressional enactments 
which he claimed to have been passed by the usurpation of 
power, and did not hesitate to do what he could to cast odium 
upon Congress. Acrimonious thrusts at the President by 
members of Congress in their speeches had been frequent for 
a good many months before impeachment proceedings were 
formally begun when all seemed to have taken advantage of 
the occasion to vent their spleen. Mr. Johnson was a life long 
Democrat, and as one of the leaders of that party, had spoken 
and written much in derogation of the principles and profes- 
sions of the Republicans. Old letters and documents calcu- 
lated to detract from Mr. Johnson's popularity were dug up 
and used with telling effect in the debates ; and weapons of 
this sort seemed only too abundant. 

The House took its first notice of the hostile attitude of the 
President in the early part of the session, December 16, 1867, 
when Mr. John F. Benjamin introduced a resolution with a 
preamble setting forth among other things, the fact that the 
President had recommended the repeal of all the reconstruc- 
tion laws passed by Congress and declaring that the House 

[159] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

"would not take one retrograde step from its advanced posi- 
tion in promoting the cause of equal rights, nor deviate from 
its fixed purpose of protecting all men as equals before the 
law." The resolution and preamble were adopted by a vote of 
112 to 43. But even the ordeal of the impeachment trial, from 
which no one could hardly hope to emerge entirely undis- 
graced, did not cause Mr. Johnson to weaken in the least in 
his stern opposition to the course of Congress. Game to the 
last, he fought the Republican policy to the end of his term 
of office when he passed into an unvenviable obscurity. It 
may be doubted whether Mr. Johnson rightly deserved all 
the odium that has been heaped upon his memory. He was 
hated of the South, not because of his record as President 
during which time he certainly showed that section a rare de- 
votion, but rather because it was felt that his loyalty to the 
Union was an unpardonable desertion of them in their crisis ; 
he was hated of the North because they felt that he deserted 
the party that trusted his integrity and honored him with the 
opportunity through which he became President. But Mr. 
Johnson never pretended to be anything more than a southern 
Democrat who espoused the cause of the Union without go- 
ing further. And this fact was generally known. He was as- 
signed the part of villian in this tragic drama and, however 
important and well played his role, men are not inclined to 
give him their applause. The cohesion of the Republican party 
just after the cessation of hostilities, when the War Demo- 
crats were returning to their old ranks and thousands of 
others who, inclined to feel that the Republican party had ful- 
filled its mission, were about to loosen their allegiance, was 
due more to the powerful force of Andrew Johnson's opposi- 
tion to the Republican administration of affairs than to any 
other cause. The struggle between Mr. Johnson and Con- 
gress convinced the people that the Republican party still had 
a mission. 

The year 1868 was a presidential year, and the re-establish- 
ment of governments in the seceded states had just begun. In 
view of the approaching election, Congress passed a law de- 
priving all the seceded states of a voice in the electoral col- 

[160] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

lege that might not have reorganized governments by the 
time prescribed by law for choosing electors. The Republi- 
cans nominated Grant and Colfax and the Democrats nomi- 
nated Seymour and Blair. The issue between the parties had 
not been so clear and well defined since Lincoln was first 
nominated on a clean platform against the extension of 
slavery. The Republicans on the one side, declared that the 
functions of the states lately in rebellion were dead and could 
not be revived except by the action of the national govern- 
ment through which readmission had to be regularly sought. 
The Democrats on the other hand, claimed that these states 
were already in the Union and as such were entitled to all the 
prerogatives of states, that the ordinances of secession were 
anulled by the force of arms and the failure of the rebellion 
left everything as it had been before. The Republicans stood 
for equal suffrage, equal rights, and equal privileges of all be- 
fore the law ; the Democrats advocated the exclusion of the 
freedmen from all civil and political rights. So the party lines 
diverged about as widely as can be well imagined. 

Mr. Blair, the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, so 
far allowed his partisan bitterness to override his judgment, 
as to state in a letter to a prominent member of the Demo- 
cratic Convention, that in case of the election of their ticket, 
any policy devoted to the destruction of the governments set 
up in the South by the reconstructionists would have his un- 
swerving support. He declared that since the large Republi- 
can majority in the Senate would forestall the possibility of 
destroying these governments through any legislative pro- 
cess, he was willing to appeal to arms for the accomplishment 
of his purpose. This letter caused the greatest excitement and 
was everywhere quoted throughout the campaign and used 
with great effect. Perhaps no letter was ever used on such an 
occasion with such potent effect, except, perhaps that written 
by Henry Clay when he was a candidate for the presidency. 

The Republican party was overwhelmingly victorious at 
the November elections (1868), and when Congress met in 
December the Republicans, whose radical platform had been 
so thoroughly indorsed at the polls, were ready with many 

[161] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

propositions for the adoption of a Fifteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution. Among the first was Senator Sumner with 
a bill for the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion abolishing slavery and declaring the immunity of citi- 
zens and guaranteeing a Republican form of government by 
securing the elective franchise to those deprived of the same 
by reason of race, etc. Another proposition submitted by 
Senator Henderson was in the following language : "No state 
shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold 
office on account of race, color or previous condition." This 
was amended in committee and reported substantially as it 
now stands in the Constitution, January 23, 1869. Simultan- 
eously with this movement in the Senate Mr. George S. 
Boutwell introduced in the House a bill for the extension of 
the franchise and the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment, which was promptly passed by that body on Jan- 
uary 30, 1869, but when it came up in the Senate, Mr. 
Stewart, under instructions from the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to which it had been referred, moved to strike out 
all after the enacting clause which was as follows : "The right 
of any citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of 
race, color or previous condition of servitude of any class of 
citizens of the United States. Congress shall have power to 
enforce," etc., and insert the following: "The right of the citi- 
zens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be 
denied or abridged by the United States or any state on ac- 
count of race, color or previous condition of servitude." 
Senator George H. Williams (Oregon) wanted some measure 
simply giving Congress the right to abolish or modify any 
law that might be made by any state in restriction of the suf- 
frage of the citizens of the United States, fearing, as he said, 
that, notwithstanding precautions, some of the states might 
find a way to discriminate unjustly and the aggrieved would 
have no remedy. Senator Sumner, on the other hand, at- 
tacked the whole scheme looking to a constitutional amend- 
ment and declared that in view of the passage of the Thir- 
teenth and Fourteenth Amendments to say that any state 

[162] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

could at any time make any law prohibiting or restricting the 
right of suffrage on any such account as the proposed Fif- 
teenth Amendment contemplated, was a mockery : "Nothing 
more nor less than a recognition of the old State Rights' doc- 
trine." He desired Congress to pass a simple Act based on 
these two amendments to take immediate effect. The Senate 
proposition as reported by Senator Stewart was adopted by 
that body by a vote of 39 to 16, but when the matter was 
taken up by the House it refused to concur, whereupon the 
Senate declined to consider further the House measure and 
resumed the consideration of the Henderson resolution which 
was under discussion in that chamber at the time the House 
resolution was received. The Senate forthwith adopted the 
Henderson resolution embodying the Fifteenth Amendment, 
February 17, and sent it to the House where it was amended 
on motion of Mr. Bingham by the insertion of the words "na- 
tivity, property or creed" after the words "on account of." 
The Senate having refused to concur in this change, the mat- 
ter was sent to a conference committee which resulted in an 
agreement to report the measure framed as it now stands in 
the Constitution. The House adopted it on February 25 by a 
vote of 145 to 44, and it was adopted by the Senate on the 
next day by a vote of 39 to 13. None of the series of the war 
amendments has a more interesting history, perhaps, than 
that of the Fifteenth Amendment. The exigencies of the times 
showed the necessity for the adoption of some such measure, 
the people having unmistakably demanded such, as the result 
of the previous election demonstrated. But just what should 
be the scope and shape of the measure to be adopted was a 
matter of the gravest concern. The radicals, under the leader- 
ship of Mr. Sumner, wanted an Act that might bear imme- 
diate fruit in its tendency to suppress Ku Kluxism, etc. ; the 
conservatives advocated a constitutional amendment in order 
to make the legislatures of the various states participate in 
the responsibility. In advocating the adoption of an Act as 
against a constitutional amendment, Mr. Sumner said: "The 
amendment admits that under the national Constitution as it 
as, with its recent additions, a caste and oligarchy of the skin 

[163] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

may be set up without any check from Congress; that these 
ignoble forms of inequality are consistent with Republican 
forms of government ; and that the right to vote is not an ex- 
isting privilege and right of citizenship. The hesitancy to 
present the amendment is increased when we consider the 
difficulties in the way of ratification. * * * I understand 
that nobody has yet been able to enumerate the states whose 
votes can be counted on to assure ratification within any rea- 
sonable time. In the meantime this question, which can not 
brook delay, which for the sake of peace and to complete re- 
construction, should be settled at once, is handed over to pro- 
longed controversy in the states. I need not depict the evils 
which might ensue. A state will become for the time, a po- 
litical cauldron into which will be dropped all the poisoned 
ingredients of prejudice and hate, while a powerful political 
party, chanting like the witches in Macbeth: 

'Double, double, toil and trouble, 
Fire burn and cauldron bubble,' 

will use this very amendment as the puddling stick to stir up 
the bubbling mass." Mr. Sumner quoted many decisions of 
the highest tribunals of the ancient and modern worlds, in- 
cluding even, the Dred Scott Decision by Taney, to show that 
the term citizen involved all the rights and immunities to be 
enjoyed by any and all persons claiming citizenship of a 
country. Speaking of the old interpretations of the Constitu- 
tion, Mr. Sumner said: "State rights were exalted. Anything 
for slavery was constitutional. Vain are all our victories if 
this terrible rule is not reversed so that State Rights shall 
yield to Human Rights and the nation be exalted as the bul- 
wark of all. This will be the crowning victory of the war. 
Beyond all question, the true rule under the national Consti- 
tution, especially since its additionel amendments, is that 
anything for Human Rights is Constitutional." 

Referring to Mr. Sumner's construction of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, Senator Howe (Michigan) who served on the 
Joint Committee, observed that the idea of that measure 

[164] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

carrying with it the right to vote was not particularly dis- 
cussed, whereupon Mr. Sumner denied the correctness of the 
statement with emphasis, and in reply to Mr. Howe, said: 
"The Senator is aware that his statement was denied at the 
time and the measure never could have passed the Senate had 
anybody attributed to it that meaning. The Senator knew 
well that as it came from the House it was susceptible of 
such an interpretation ; and I felt it my duty to oppose it, 
which I did at great length and most elaborately, precisely on 
the ground that it did abandon to the states the power to dis- 
criminate against colored persons. I refused to support it and 
associating myself with others in that refusal, we defeated 
it." 1 

Mr. Sumner's substitute for the Fifteenth Amendment was 
as follows : "The right to vote, to be voted for and to hold of- 
fice shall not be denied or abridged anywhere in the United 
States under any pretense of race or color, and all provisions 
in state constitutions or in any laws, state, territorial or mu- 
nicipal, inconsistent herewith are declared null and void." The 
other sections of the bill provided penalties for violation of 
the Act., etc., and gave the United States District Courts ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of all offenses against it. 2 Mr. Sumner's 
proposition was defeated by a vote of 47 to 9. While the Fif- 
teenth Amendment was unsatisfactory to many, if not most, 
of the great leaders in Congress, none was criticized for op- 
posing it as severely as Mr. Sumner. Whether this was be- 
cause he was always the most conspicuous figure in all such 
movements or because he so often made his colleagues sore 
by his merciless attacks upon anything that seemed like sham 
or hypocrisy, may be left to conjecture. His colleagues, never- 
theless, seemed always glad of an opportunity of charging 
him with anything that even seemed to appear inconsistent. 

When the bill for the readmission of Virginia was under 
consideration in the early part of 1870 many seemed unusually 
anxious to have the state admitted in the hope that it might 



1. See Appendix for interpretation of Supreme Court as to what Congress in- 
tended on this point. 

2. See Appendix for construction of similar Act. 

[165] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

facilitate the adoption of the last constitutional amendments 
by the necessary three-fourths of the states. Senator Stew- 
art was among those who were foremost in advocating the 
admission of the state, while Mr. Sumner maintained that law 
and order had not been sufficiently restored; and that as long 
as the lawless element remained in apparent control of affairs 
the state should not be readmitted. On January 12, 1870, a 
very lengthy memorial, purporting to have come from the 
loyal Republicans of Virginia and disclosing a very discourag- 
ing state of affairs, was handed to Mr. Sumner, who sent it to 
the Clerk's desk to be read. Among other things it stated that 
the memorialists had appealed to the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate, but had not been heard ; that a majority of the 
State Legislature of Virginia had been elected through fraud ; 
that murder and outrages of every sort were being perpe- 
trated upon the loyalists of the state because of their loyalty; 
that when arrests were made, which were not frequent, rebel 
juries would immediately acquit the guilty parties ; that it was 
openly asserted in the canvass that the rebel party supported 
the expurgated constitution only for the sake of gaining ad- 
mission to the Union, etc., etc. Upon hearing this memorial 
read Senators Stewart and Nye, and especially the former, 
very bitterly denounced the memorialists who, of course, were 
denfended by Senator Sumner. During the discussion that 
arose over the matter, Senator Stewart carefully selected 
disjointed paragraphs from Senator Sumner's speech on 
the Fifteenth Amendment before referred to, and cutting- 
ly arraigned him for his course in connection with that meas- 
ure. A couple of days before this, in the debate on the Vir- 
ginia bill, Mr. Stewart asserted that Mr. Sumner did not vote 
for the Fifteenth Amendment ; knowing how seldom he was 
absent and how he would have voted had he been present, 
Mr. Sumner corrected Senator Stewart's assertion as erron- 
eous. It turned out, however, that Mr. Sumner was in error 
as he was absent when the final vote on the Fifteenth Amend- 
ment was taken. Mr. Trumbull also joined Mr. Stewart in a 
very severe attack on Mr. Sumner for opposing the admis- 
sion of Virginia. In vindicating himself against these attacks 

[166] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Mr. Sumner revealed much of the inside history of the whole 
reconstruction movement and told of many things that took 
place in committees of which no record is made. He re- 
counted at length how Senator Trumbull had always opposed 
anti-slavery measures before the war and radical reconstruc- 
tion afterwards ; how he had championed the cause of Presi- 
dent Johnson during the impeachment trial, etc., etc. In mak- 
ing a thorough search of the record in order to impeach the 
consistency of Mr. Sumner, it appeared that Mr. Trumbull had 
been able to find two important Republican measures for 
which Mr. Sumner had not voted, having been absent from 
his seat when the final vote was taken in each case ; these 
were the Fifteenth Amendment and another measure passed 
earlier in the struggle known as the "Act to provide for more 
efficient government of the rebel states." In this address vin- 
dicating himself, Mr. Sumner, among other things said: "This 
assault to-day compels me to make a statement which I never 
supposed I should be called upon to make. I make it now with 
hesitation, but rather to show his (Trumbull's) own course 
rather than mine. Sir, I am the author of the provision in that 
Act conferring the suffrage, and when I brought it forward, 
the Senator from Illinois was one of my opponents ; then as 
now. Senators who were there remember well that the whole 
subject was practically taken out of the Senate for the time, 
to a caucus of the Republican party where a committee was 
created to which all pending measures of reconstruction were 
referred. * * * The Senator from Ohio was chairman. 
In that committee the reconstruction bill was debated and 
matured word for word and sentence by sentence, and then 
and there I moved that we should require the suffrage of all 
persons without distinction of color in the organization of the 
new governments and in all the constitutions to be made. In 
taking this position at the time I was only following the 
proposition I had made in the Senate more than two years be- 
fore, which I had urged upon the people in an elaborate ad- 
dress before a political convention in Massachusetts, which I 
again upheld in an elaborate address of two days in this 
chamber, and which from the very beginning I had never lost 

[167] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

sight of from my mind or heart. It was natural that I should 
press it in committee, but I was overruled, the Senator from 
Illinois opposing me with his accustomed determination. The 
chairman observed my discontent and said : 'You may renew 
your motion in the caucus.' I said I would do so, stating that 
I had been voted down in the committee, but would appeal 
from the committee to the caucus. My colleague (Mr. Wil- 
son) who sits in front of me, shouted: 'Do so. The report of 
the committee will leave a great question open to debate on 
every square mile of the South. We must close the question 
up.' Another Senator, who is not here now, Mr. Gratz Brown, 
cried out earnestly, 'Push it to a vote, we will stand by you.' 
I needed no such encouragement for my determination was 
fixed. There sat the Senator from Illinois, sullen in his oppo- 
sition. I pushed it to a vote and it was carried by two major- 
ity, Senators rising to be counted. My colleague, in his joy on 
that occasion, cried out : 'This is the greatest vote that has 
ever been taken on this Continent.' He felt, I felt, we all felt 
that the question of suffrage was secure. I am compelled to 
this statement by the assault of the Senator from Illinois. I 
had no disposition to make it. I don't claim anything for my- 
self, I did only my duty. * * * The Senator read from 
the Globe the vote on the passage of the bill and exulted be- 
cause my name was not there. Is there any Senator in this 
chamber who is absent from his seat less than I am? There 
was a reason for my absence on that occasion. I had left this 
chamber at midnight, fatigued, not well, knowing that the 
great cause was assured notwithstanding the opposition of 
the Senator from Illinois ; knowing that at last, the right of 
the colored people to suffrage was recognized. I had seen it 
placed in the bill on my motion safe against the assaults of 
the Senator from Illinois. Why should I, fatigued and not 
well, stay until morning to swell the large and ascertained 
majority which it was destined to receive? I had no occasion 
to make up any such record. You know my fidelity to this 
cause. Reconstruction, even with the suffrage, was defective. 
More was needed. There should have been a system of free 
schools, greater protection to the freedmen, all of which I 

[168] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

sought in vain to obtain in committee. * * * Pained by 
the failure and feeling that there was nothing more for me 
to do, after midnight, I retired." 

From the time of the Revolution down to about 1820, when 
the anti-slavery agitation received such impetus from the 
Missouri controversy, and was taken up by Garrison and his 
school of Abolitionists, free colored people were allowed to 
vote in many states of the North as well as in several of the 
southern states. 3 Many of the northern states, in the consti- 
tutions which they adopted just after the Revolution, took no 
notice of the colored people at all, but simply made provision 
for their citizens generally, as was done, for instance, in the 
State of Pennsylvania. But between 1820 and 1850 nearly all 
of the states formulated new constitutions with specific pro- 
visions excluding Negroes from the right to exercise the right 
of suffrage in obedience to the demands of the South. 



3. See opinion of Gaston, J., in State vs. Manuel 4 Dev. & Bat. 20 (N. C. Su- 
preme Court), also Mr. Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion in Dred Scott case; 
also speech of W. J. Willey, Globe, June 27, 1866; also Giddings, p. 69. 



[169] 



CHAPTER XIX 



Negroes in Politics — Anti-Negro Election Riots — The Admission of 
Alabama and Arkansas — The Omnibus Bill — Outrages of Ku 
Kluxism Investigated — The Adoption of the Fifteenth Amend- 
ment a Condition Precedent for Admission of Other States — 
The Virginia Bill — Admission of State — The Admission of 
Mississippi — Revels, the First Negro Senator, Seated. 

By the Fifteenth Amendment the right of suffrage was 
conferred upon the freedmen in language so clear that no 
construction by any court was needed. Epoch-making events 
had moved rapidly. History may somewhere record where a 
people had risen up and seized their rights and at once en- 
tered upon the enjoyment of them, but nowhere do we find 
where so many privileges have been conferred all of a sudden 
and practically without warning as in the case of the freed- 
men in the United States. Between 1859 and 1869 the colored 
people of the United States were swept through social 
changes and experiences, the wilderness that lies between the 
Egypt of slavery and the Promised Land of full citizenship, 
that generally detain the pilgrims of a race for generations. 
But as the Negroes had been summoned as allies by those who 
were struggling to save the Union on the field of battle, so it 
became necessary to arm them with the ballot in order to ob- 
tain their aid in the struggle to reconstruct the laws of the 
nation on the floor of Congress. And they were immediately 
put into harness, as it were, where they have ever since 
played an important part in American politics, and where 
their influence began to be actively felt in 1868. On Feb- 
ruary 25, 1868, Congress passed an act to provide for 
the facilitation of the adoption of state constitutions 
where such had been annulled, which Act was in the 
nature of a supplement to the General Enabling Act of 
March 2, 1867. It provided that all persons in a state 
duly registered as voters ten days before election day should 
be permitted to vote in the district wherein they might reside. 

[170] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Under this Act, the so-called loyal people in the disaffected 
states, many of whom were necessarily "Carpet-baggers," be- 
gan to formulate constitutions. Although there had been for 
some months previous a general movement in the South ap- 
parently in the direction of returning to the Union, it was 
heavy and slow and gave every evidence of the hard strain 
under which the people were laboring. Everything had been 
done under pressure of the national government and wherever 
this pressure was removed or even lightened, matters at once 
got out of adjustment. The people of Alabama, having held 
a convention, formed a constitution which was submitted to 
the voters for ratification in February, 1868. Just previous to 
this time many of the troops stationed in that section to pre- 
serve order had been removed, and as a result, those opposed 
to the adoption of the new constitution took forcible posses- 
sion of the polls and drove the reconstructionists away with- 
out allowing them to vote. The convention that formed the 
constitution met in the previous August and was composed of 
radical Republicans, but the majority of the electors depend- 
ed upon to support the measure when it came to be voted 
upon were freedmen who were more or less easily intimi- 
dated by the threats or scowls of their late masters. Nor were 
there merely meaningless threats as the following extracts 
from reports received from officials of that region will tend 
to show. 1 "Union men of this county will have to leave, 
* * * mob law prevails. Freedmen are discharged from 
employment and driven to the woods because they voted for 
the constitution. Organizations are formed to drive the Union 
men from the county. Children are proscribed from the 
schools." Another official reported as follows : "Voters were 
told that if they voted for the constitution they would be 
driven away ; * * * all the votes cast have been by men 
of unusual nerve in the face of the most menacing violence." 
The constitution of the state had been, indeed, radically re- 
constructed by that convention. It was the ideal Republican 
brand and such as would take with only the truly reconstruct- 



1. Globe, Second Session Fortieth Congress, p. 598, etc., presented by Con- 
gressman Peters. 

[171] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ed southerner and it is fair to presume that it was all that 
even he could conscientiously swallow. Before being allowed 
to register each voter was required to take an oath to sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States and the laws of 
Alabama, to abrogate the rights of secession, to accept the 
civil and political equality of all men and never endeavor to 
deprive any person of any civil right, privilege or immunity 
on account of color or race or previous condition of servitude. 
The war was now three years past and as long as any state 
was out of the Union the whole country must necessarily re- 
main in an unsettled condition. But the opposing element was 
plainly working to keep things in this condition until they 
could be adjusted on a basis of their own fixing. The Act 
under which reconstruction was being developed passed 
March 2, 1867, provided for the calling of conventions to for- 
mulate constitutions which were to be ratified by a majority 
of the votes of the qualified electors. The registration lists 
were used as a basis upon which to determine this majority. 
All made it a point to register and qualify, but when the elec- 
tion came off the opposition party, in order to make the re- 
turns show that the result was not the action of the majority 
of the qualified electors, would neither vote themselves nor 
allow others to vote. The Reconstruction Committee to which 
the proposition to admit the state was referred, reported that 
the state should be entitled to admission on condition that the 
"constitution of Alabama shall never be changed or amended 
so as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United 
States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the 
constitution hereby recognized." The committee further bound 
them to all the radical provisions of their compact. There is 
no doubt whatever that all the states might have come in 
under conditions as easy and as simple as those imposed upon 
Tennessee whose reconstructed constitution so sharply dis- 
criminated against the colored people had not the stubborn 
disposition of the southern whites forced upon Congress the 
necessity of placing the political power of that section into 
the hands of the freedmen and "Carpet-baggers" who virtu- 
ally dragged the states back into the Union. By the shrewd- 

[172] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ness of the Democrats and the stupidity of the Senate, as Mr. 
Stevens characterized it, the admission of Alabama at this 
time was defeated because it was shown that a majority of 
the qualified voters had not ratified its new constitution. Mr. 
Stevens, in the first place, urged upon Congress the necessity 
of admitting the states upon the ratification of their constitu- 
tions by a majority of the votes cast instead of requiring rati- 
fication by a majority of the qualified voters. The Alabama 
constitution, therefore, was recognized as provisional only 
and as such was allowed to go into temporary operation and 
the legislature elected thereunder was authorized, when it 
might see fit, to resubmit it to the people. But there happened 
to be no great loss or setback in the matter because the state 
was admitted a short while later under the provisions of the 
Omnibus Bill. 

In the latter part of 1868 Arkansas called a convention and 
formulated a constitution for submission to her people. This 
constitution was about as drastic in its requirements as that 
of Alabama just referred to; in fact it was practically a re- 
plica of the latter. The document was fiercely attacked by the 
Democrats in Congress. It was contended that such humiliat- 
ing conditions should not be imposed upon a state seeking ad- 
mission, that the specifications in the test oath were utterly 
at variance, not only with the teaching and practices of the 
white people of America but with the civilized world ; in short 
the same arguments were used that have been employed in 
matters of this kind since Pickney pleaded for the rentention 
of slavery in the colonies. The people of Arkansas ratified this 
constitution, however, by a majority of about thirteen hun- 
dred and it is said that the majority would have been much 
larger had it not been for the fact that the voters were re- 
quired to reside in their districts for too long a time before 
being allowed to register. The election to ratify or reject the 
constitution took place about the middle of March, 1868, and 
the bill for admission of the state came up on May 8, when 
the Reconstruction Committee which reported it had added a 
clause to the effect that "this constitution shall never be so 
changed or amended as to deprive any citizen or class of citi- 

[173] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

zens of the right to vote who are entitled to vote under the 
constitution herein recognized. " The whole matter was at- 
tacked when it came up in the Senate, on the ground that in- 
asmuch as the state had adopted a constitution Republican in 
form and the whole proceedings had taken place under the 
General Enabling Act of March 2, 1867, all that was necessary- 
had been done, and so Senator Terry (Connecticut) moved 
to strike out all conditions precedent so as to provide simply 
for the admission of the state on equal terms with the other 
states. This motion was defeated by only one vote — 20 yeas 
to 21 nays. Senator Drake (Missouri) offered an amendment 
to the effect that "there should never be any denial of the free 
exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, 
etc., which was agreed to by a vote of 26 to 14, and the Senate 
passed the bill practically in this shape on June 1. The 
House refused to concur in the Senate amendments and the 
matter was referred to a conference committee which report- 
ed the measure back essentially as it came from the House 
originally with the addition of a clause permitting the state 
to change the time and place as to residence of voters. Both 
Houses adopted the report and under such a constitution Ar- 
kansas was taken back into the Union. 

From time to time resolutions were offered providing for 
the admission of some state all of which were referred to the 
Reconstruction Committee for report. About the middle of 
May the committee reported a bill known as the "Omnibus 
Bill," for the admission of North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia and Louisiana. The preamble set forth that these 
states had adopted constitutions Republican in form and were, 
therefore, entitled to admission, etc. These constitutions were 
all essentially the same as the Arkansas compact. The bill 
met with the usual opposition on the part of the Democrats, 
who declared that Congress was assuming undelegated power 
and the action was unconstitutional ; the attack upon the test 
oath was particularly acrimonious. The committee had placed 
in the bill a clause against changing or amending the consti- 
tutions like that which the original Arkansas bill carried ; 
Judge Bingham moved to strike this out on the ground that it 

[174] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

perpetuated the conditions of franchise as they then stood, 
and it might at some time become expedient for the public 
good to change them. He offered as a substitute for that 
clause the following: "That civil and political rights shall be 
forever equally secured in said states to all the citizens of the 
United States resident therein, in so far as is now provided in 
said constitutions respectively." The House accepted this 
amendment after having made some slight but unimportant 
modifications. Perhaps no one step in the whole process of 
reconstruction was more bitterly contested than this bill 
which proposed to admit these states under such stringent 
conditions. The whole arsenal of Democratic invectives was 
turned loose in a raging fusilade against the Republicans and 
the Negroes. Thaddeus Stevens closed the debate in the 
House with a short, pungent speech. Referring to the re- 
marks of Mr. Brooks (New York) reflecting upon the idea of 
allowing the freedmen to participate in the government, Mr. 
Stevens said : "I trust that the gentleman will find out that 
we do mean that every man in this Republic whether he be 
white or black or mixed ; whether he comes from the East or 
from the West ; from the North or from the South ; from the 
rising or from the setting sun, is as free and as much his own 
master as the gentleman from New York or myself. And I 
am sure there is no one who is not as worthy to be as either 
of us. Let it never again be heard in these Halls that objec- 
tion is made to institutions because they allow beings, allow 
all beings with mortal souls in their bodies, to take part in 
the government under which they are to serve, under which 
they are to live, under which they are to rear their children 
and under which they are to die. I, therefore, say I have no 
apology to make for the admission that we intend that these 
men shall have the right to compete in intellect, in science 
and in religion with the gentleman from New York and his 
constituents of the 'Five Points'; 2 with myself and the honest 
yeomanry who are my constituents, and with all the people 
of the nation. And let him who is the most worthy, who 



2. The "Fire Points" is the name applied to a section of New York City 
noted for its poor and wretched denizens, as well as for degraded and tough 
characters generally. 



[175] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

climbs the highest upon the ladder of merit, of science, of in- 
tellect, of morality — let him be ruler according to the law, of 
all his sluggard neighbors, no matter who they are, whether 
they be men of nobility or whether they be of the common 
rank." The bill passed with the usual Republican majority. 
When the measure reached the Senate it was proposed that 
the title of the bill be so amended as to include Alabama. 
Senator Trumbull and some others opposed the amendment 
on the ground that it would be improper in view of the fact 
that the returns in the constitutional election had shown that 
a majority of the electors had not voted. It will be remember- 
ed that this was the objection raised in the House when the 
state was first a candidate for admission and resulted in hav- 
ing the government of the state recognized as provisional 
only. Senator Trumbull's objection did not prevail. When 
the vote on the bill was taken, June 10, its title was again 
amended so as to include Florida. The House later concurred 
in all these amendments as to adding names of states and 
thus the whole combination was received back into the Union 
under the stringent conditions named. 

President Johnson returned the bill admitting Arkansas 
with his veto on June 20. In his veto message he took the 
same ground that he was accustomed to take on all recon- 
struction legislation by Congress. To begin with, he denied 
the constitutionality of the Act of March 2, 1867, under 
which all the states were required to seek admission. He 
especially attacked the "fundamental condition clause" and 
the "test oath." But both Congress and the President now 
seemed to understand each other. The message, therefore, 
caused neither surprise nor comment. The same quiet air pre- 
vailed in the Senate as in the House when the President's 
message was laid before them, when the Speaker simply said: 
"The question is, will the House, on reconsideration, agree 
to the passage of the bill;" the vote was 111 to 31. The 
Senate, on the same day, passed the bill by a vote of 30 to 7, 
and the President's veto was accordingly overriden. Three 
days later the Omnibus Bill was returned by the President 
without his signature, and this, too, was passed and became 

[176] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

law by virtue of a two-thirds majority in both Houses. By 
the middle of July (1868) most of the seceded states had for- 
mulated constitutions in accordance with the requirements of 
the law. Virginia, Mississippi and Texas, however, still re- 
mained with provisional governments while mobocracy and 
Ku Kluxism held sway. There seems to have been such little 
inclination on the part of these states to be reconstructed 
that Congress deemed it necessary to enact legislation for 
their especial benefit. On July 24, Mr. Bingham reported a 
bill providing for the "speedy restoration" of these states. 

The main features of the bill intended to enlarge the powers 
vested in the provisional legislatures, giving the power to ap- 
point and dismiss certain officers ; to make regulations for 
the peace and protection of the community, and to exercise 
powers as nearly like those of a regularly constituted govern- 
ment as possible. The bill further provided for the reassemb- 
ling of the conventions in Virginia and Mississippi on the 
fourth Wednesday after its passage ; and that the convention 
of Mississippi should at once formulate a constitution to be 
submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. It ap- 
peared that the state had made no effort in that direction what- 
ever. Some of the states seemed determined to go no faster 
nor further in the direction of readjusting their relations to 
the nation than they were compelled to go. Some formed con- 
stitutions but delayed in submitting them to be voted on, etc. 
So on April 8, 1869, Congress passed an Act authorizing the 
President to order these constitutions to be voted on by the 
people whenever it might seem to the best interest of the 
government ; this measure also made the adoption of the 
Fifteenth Amendment a condition precedent before these 
states could come back into the Union. The shocking bar- 
barities and depredations by the Ku Klux having continued un- 
abated when the Third Session of the Fortieth Congress as- 
sembled, December 7, 1868, Mr. James A. Mullins (Tennes- 
see) brought the matter to the attention of the House and 
secured the appointment of a committee to investigate the 
whole subject of these outrages. The camps, lodges, grips, 
signs and passwords discovered, revealed the most stupend- 

[177] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ous scheme to override law and order ever brought to light 
in this country. The report of this committee fills many 
volumes. 

In President Grant's first message, in December, 1869, he 
informed Congress that Virginia had held a convention and 
adopted a reconstructed constitution during the previous July 
and recommended that her Senators and Representatives 
when otherwise qualified, be given their seats in the national 
councils. A resolution was straightway offered for the ad- 
mission of the state, but owing to the numerous amendments 
proposed, a lengthy and bitter debate ensued. Senator Wil- 
son wanted to have an oath attached to be subscribed by 
members of the legislature binding them never to endeavor 
to change or amend the constitution of the state so as to de- 
prive any citizen of the benefits of the Fourteenth and Fif- 
teenth Amendments ; also pledging them to an impartial ad- 
ministration of the free school system. Impetus was given 
to the movement for the Wilson amendment by reports to 
the effect that a majority of the Virginia Legislature had 
been elected through fraud and that the state was seeking 
admission for the avowed purpose of gaining a position 
wherein it could more effectually oppose reconstruction. 
Senator Wilson's amendment did not prevail but a proposi- 
tion by Senator Drake (Missouri) of a very similar nature 
was accepted by the Senate which also adopted that part of 
Senator Wilson's proposition for an equitable administration 
of the free school system. In this shape the Virginia bill pass- 
ed the Senate, January 21, 1870, and was taken up and passed 
by the House a few days later without modification. The 
bill for the admission of Mississippi, essentially the same as 
the Virginia bill, passed the House February 3, 1870, without 
debate. When it came up in the Senate, about a week later, 
on the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was pro- 
posed to strike out all after the enacting clause so that the 
bill would simply provide for the admission of the state. It 
appeared that when the constitution was voted upon by the 
people, that part of the matter which referred to the accept- 
ance of the equality of all men, etc., was rejected by a 

. [178] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

large majority. It was urged by Senator Trumbull, who was 
an ultra-conservative, that it would be unfair to compel the 
state to remain out of the Union on account of such pro- 
visions in the bill as had been rejected by the people at the 
polls ; strenuous efforts were made, therefore, to defeat the 
measure as it came from the House. It was debated 
ad nauseam only to be passed without modification as it came 
from the House on February 17. About this time the Senate 
received a rather unusual shock. Hiram R. Revels, the first 
Negro ever seatedi in the United States Senate was sworn in 
on February 25, 1870. This event fairly took the breath 
away from the Bourbons, prostrated the Copperheads and 
galled, not a little, many others. It gave occasion for renewed 
and, if possible, more acrimonious aspersions upon the race 
which Mr. Revels represented. Some seemed to have lost 
their self-respect altogether so freely were personalities and 
puny insults indulged. Mr. Revels survived them all and 
calmly took his seat in the historic chamber that had re- 
sounded with the eloquence of the Websters and Clays of the 
nation and where even then sat some of the greatest minds 
the republic has ever produced. Mississippi has since had one 
other colored Senator, Hon. B. K. Bruce, who also held 
other high offices of public trust, among them being that of 
Register of the Treasury and Recorder of Deeds for the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. Under her present constitution, however, 
Mississippi is no longer in danger of having colored men to 
represent her in any capacity, for despite the circumstances 
and the compact under which she was readmitted to the 
Union, she has practically disfranchised all of her colored citi- 
zens ; and all the other southern states have done the same. 
And so we make new history but can not unmake that which 
is already made. 



[179] 



CHAPTER XX 



Colored Men Elected to the Georgia Legislature: Their Expulsion 
From that Body — The Confused Condition and Anomalous Sit- 
uation in the State — Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment 
Announced — Georgia Again Recognized as a State, All Irreg- 
ularities Being Waived. 

The State of Georgia was one of those admitted under the 
Omnibus Bill in July, 1868, after a bitter contest. Although 
Tennessee furnished a precedent by promptly reorganizing 
her government under the provisions of the General Enab- 
ling Act of March 2, 1867, all hope of keeping the disaffected 
states out of the Union until Congress should be forced to 
recognize the doctrine that the functions of their old consti- 
tutions had not been destroyed but simply suspended, making 
it necessary for them only to resume, was not abandoned un- 
til after the passage of the Omnibus Bill, at which time a 
large batch of states was admitted at once. This was a great 
victory for the radical reconstructionists ; and this in connec- 
tion with the announcement of the adoption of the Four- 
teenth Amendment, July 21, 1868, by the requisite number 
of states tended to make all feel that the crisis in reconstruc- 
tion had been passed. 

Georgia, as soon as she was admitted, began at once 
to take steps to resume her relations to the Union by electing 
a legislature preparatory to the election of her United States 
Senators, etc. A number of colored men were elected to the 
State Assembly along with the rest, but that body expelled 
them as soon as it met, on the ground that the right to vote 
did not include the right to hold office. This short task of ex- 
pelling these twenty-seven colored members having been ac- 
complished, the Assembly next quietly proceeded to elect 
United States Senators, who immediately repaired to Wash- 
ington. Congress refused to recognize either the Senators or 
Representatives from Georgia in view of the well-known 
situation of affairs in the state. General Butler offered a 

[180] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

resolution proposing to put the state through another course 
of reconstruction ; this gave rise to a discussion, during which 
all the circumstances attending the expulsion of the twenty- 
seven members of the Georgia Legislature were aired. There 
appears to have been no particular ceremony about the mat- 
ter whatever; they were simply not permitted to enter the 
Hall, while the white members on the inside voted to keep 
them outside by deciding that they were not members en- 
titled to seats. The whole thing must have been looked on as 
a joke, as nothing ever came out of it beyond the temporary 
embarrassment Congress inflicted upon the National Repre- 
sentatives from Georgia who were for a short time denied 
their seats at Washington. This Georgia Legislature not only 
expelled its twenty-seven colored members but seated twen- 
ty-seven white men who were disqualified under Section 3, of 
the Fourteenth Amendment. Still the state had its champions 
in Washington. Senator Trumbull labored to get his col- 
leagues to agree to admit the members from Georgia to their 
seats because the state had been admitted before these com- 
plications arose. The House finally passed a bill providing 
for the recognition of the Representatives, etc., from Georgia 
whenever, among other things, the legislature should adopt 
the Fifteenth Amendment ; but Mr. Bingham got an amend- 
ment attached to the effect that nothing in the Act should be 
construed to vacate any office, elective or appointive, nor 
should anything contained therein be construed to operate 
for the retention of any persons in office beyond the time 
specified by the state constitution. In view of the fact that 
many were said to be holding office in the state through 
fraud, this amendment was not satisfactory ; besides it served 
to muddle and complicate matters worse than they were at 
first, for this Legislature of Georgia promptly adopted all 
the constitutional amendments, even including the Fifteenth, 
all of which they appeared to have violated in the same in- 
stant. The situation was therefore considered to be bad 
enough without dragging in the question as to whether state 
officials and petty officers elected in 1868 for a term of two 
years should continue for two years after all the affairs of 

[181] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the state should become settled or whether their term of of- 
fice should date from the time they went in office in 1868. All 
these officials had been nominally serving and at least draw- 
ing their salaries since 1868; and these included those who 
had voted to expel the colored men as well as the rest. All 
had served their two years. Still they claimed the right to 
serve on until these affairs were settled and then to serve for 
two years thereafter. Mr. Bullock, who was the Governor of 
the state, most strenuously upheld the contention that the 
legislature should serve another term of two years without 
another election. The House loaded the Bingham proposition 
with so many amendments and conditions that it was scarcely 
recognizable. When the matter was taken up in the Senate, 
Mr. Pomeroy had everything stricken out of the bill except 
that part providing for the government of the state to be 
provisional, and had inserted provisions authorizing the 
President to send Federal troops into any city, town, or dis- 
trict when satisfied that there was within its borders domes- 
tic violence or obstructions to the due process of law. This 
Senate measure was reported back from the House Recon- 
struction Committee, with some few alterations, on June 23 
(1870) but the members were still so puzzled over the matter 
that there was little agreement to be found either in the com- 
mittee or on the floor of the House. The matter hung on for 
an unusually long time. Finally, the two Houses having 
failed to agree, the matter was referred to a conference 
which at length matured a bill under which the Representa- 
tives of the state were recognized and there the matter ended,, 
all the irregularities having been ignored or condoned, as 
everybody had been either disgusted or worn out with the 
controversy. 

Public feeling in the South against the colored people con- 
tinued to be very bitter. A bill was reported by Mr. Bingham 
on March 10, 1870, for the enforcement of the Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth Amendments and providing penalties for the viola- 
tion of the same. This was readily passed by the House by a 
vote of 131 to 44. In the meantime the Senate was consider- 
ing what was considered to be a much stronger measure,. 

[182] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

which provided for the arrest and prosecution of offenders 
against the spirit of the last two amendments mentioned, by- 
United States district attorneys, marshals, etc., who were di- 
rected to bring such offenders before the United States Cir- 
cuit Courts for trial. The President was also given the power, 
whenever he deemed it necessary, to order special sittings 
of said courts and also to direct the use of any part of the 
army or navy to assist in seeing that the provisions of the law 
were carried out. The bill also re-enacted the main features 
of the Civil Rights and Homestead Acts of 1866. When the 
House Bill reached the Senate, that body struck out all after 
the enacting clause and inserted its own measure, which it 
passed by a vote of 43 to 8 on May 20 (1870). The House ac- 
cepted this measure and passed it May 27, and the President 
approved it May 31. 1 Just before the final passage of this 
measure, President Grant transmitted to Congress the follow- 
ing message : "It is unusual to notify the two Houses of Con- 
gress, by message, of the promulgation by proclamation of 
the Secretary of State, of the ratification of a constitutional 
amendment. In view, however, of the vast importance of the 
Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, I deem a departure 
from the usual custom justifiable. A measure which makes at 
once four millions of people voters who were heretofore de- 
clared by the highest tribunal in the land not citizens of the 
United States nor eligible to become so (with the assertion 
that 'at the time of the Declaration of Independence the opin- 
ion was fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white 
race, and regarded as an axiom in morals as well as politics, 
that the black man had no rights which the white man was 
bound to respect') is, indeed, a measure of grander importance 
than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of our 
government to the present day. Institutions like ours, in which 
all powers are derived directly from the people, must mainly 
depend upon their intelligence, patriotism and industry. I call 
the attention, therefore, of the newly enfranchised race to 
the importance of their striving in every honorable manner 



1. Declared unconstitutional. See Appendix. 

[183] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

to make themselves worthy of their new privileges. To the 
ofrher race, more favored heretofore by our laws, I would say, 
withhold no legal privilege of advancement to the new citi- 
zens. I would therefore call upon Congress to take all means 
within their constitutional powers to promote and encourage 
popular education throughout the country ; and upon the 
people, everywhere, to see to it that all who possess and exer- 
cise political rights, shall have the opportunity to acquire the 
knowledge which shall make their share in the government a 
blessing and not a danger. By such means only can the bene- 
fits contemplated by this amendment be secured." 

It was during the discussion of the Georgia bill that Hiram 
R. Revels, the first Negro Senator, delivered his maiden 
speech in the Senate (March 16, 1870). It was not a lengthy 
effort but it was smooth and polished. In complimenting Mr. 
Revels on his speech, Senator Morton, addressing the Senate, 
said that Mr. Revels had vindicated the cause of liberty and 
shown by his ability and intelligence, that in exchanging him 
for Jefferson Davis, the Senate had "lost nothing in intelli- 
gence while it had gained much in patriotism and loyalty." 2 



2. Revels was elected to fill the unexpired term of Jefferson Davis. 



[184] 



CHAPTER XXI 



The Grant-Sumner Quarrel Over the Annexation of San Domingo- 
Senator Thurman's Speech in Sumner's Defense — Sumner Vic- 
torious, but His Colleagues Attempt to Humiliate Him. 

One of the most bitter quarrels that ever occurred between 
a President of the United States and a Senator of the same 
political party was the noted disagreement between President 
Grant and Senator Sumner about the island of San Domingo. 
One Baez, who had temporarily usurped the control of affairs 
in San Domingo, offered the island for annexation to the 
United States. The place is fertile, well suited to the pur- 
poses of commerce and most admirably situated for a harbor 
and coaling station for the United States. Grant coveted the 
possession and believed that practically all the leaders of his 
party would indorse his scheme of trying to get hold of it, and 
devoted by far the major portion of his annual message of 
December, 1870, to the enforcement of the idea upon Con- 
gress. Mr. Sumner opposed the proposition with his whole 
soul. He declared that it menaced the independence of Hayti; 
that the Dominican Government had been overthrown under 
the protection of the United States gunboats, and asserted on 
the authority of a naval officer who had been an eye-witness, 
that the admiral of our fleet had given Hayti to understand 
that no interference on the part of her people would be toler- 
ated or allowed. He declared that we were aiming to take 
despicable advantage of the people of San Domingo, who, by 
a large majority, were opposed to annexation and character- 
ized the whole affair as an "act of violence" on our part to 
which the Dominicans would never submit and declared that 
the consummation of the scheme would "commit this country 
to a dance of blood." "Governments founded on violence," 
said he, "can be maintained only by violence." Mr. Sumner's 
speech was against the proposition and not against the Presi- 
dent ; but President Grant was popular and had just entered 

[185] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

upon his power as President and it was practically well known 
at the time that he would serve for eight years; opposition 
to him in any matter, in the eyes of politicians was regarded, 
if not as treason, at least as lese majesty. Never was a mem- 
ber of Congress more bitterly assailed by his colleagues for 
his support of or opposition to any question on the floor of 
Congress than was Senator Sumner on this occasion. Nor did 
the assault come from the Democrats, the acknowledged 
enemy whom he was wont to meet. Former comrades with 
whom he had so often counseled together hurled against him 
their darts of reproach and denounced him in the bitterest 
language of which they were capable. All seemed to try to be 
first in defense of the President, who was the central figure, 
and generally lost sight of the issue entirely in their eager- 
ness to make a personal attack upon Sumner for daring to 
show up Grant and those in league with him in their endeavor 
to seize San Domingo. Indeed, it appeared that Sumner had 
made out such a good case that they despaired of answering 
his argument, hence turned to personalities, as many debat- 
ers often do under such circumstances. Sumner's speech was 
sweeping and conclusive. Several of his Republican colleagues 
had spent their time berating him, when Thurman, a Demo- 
cratic Senator from Ohio, arose to speak in Sumner's defense. 
He was evidently deeply touched by the acrimonious attack 
upon his old antagonist who, though recognized as perhaps 
the most learned and powerful debater in Congress, never 
descended to personalities of any kind. The tribute now to 
be paid to him was all the more touching and effective be- 
cause of the source from which it was to come. Mr. Thurman 
remarked that a stranger witnessing the scene would certain- 
ly have gained the impression that the Senate was impeaching 
Mr. Sumner for treason. Said he "The Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Chandler) was pleased to tell the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts that when he came 'to train his little band of Demo- 
crats' here it would not be a very difficult task; that there 
were not so many but that he might dress them in line with- 
out any great military genius. 

"When the Senator made that remark my memory took me 

[186] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

back eighteen years ago to the memorable year of 1852. 
That was a presidential year. There were two candidates, the 
Whig, General Scott, and the Democratic, General Franklin 
Pierce. They stood upon two platforms that were essentially 
the same in one particular — pro-slavery; platforms that de- 
manded in almost the same language and exactly the same 
meaning, a cessation of the agitation of the question of 
slavery and against the abolition thereof ; which denounced 
it as unpatriotic in any part of the Republic for any one to 
seek to disturb the status of slavery as it then existed in the 
United States. Upon those platforms, the two great parties 
of the country went to battle in 1852; but there was one man 
in the Senate that day, and but one, who repudiated both 
platforms and would stand on neither, who repudiated both 
candidates and would vote for neither ; and that man was 
Charles Sumner. 1 I see him standing in the Senate Chamber 
there without a single follower. He had no ten men then, the 
number of Democrats here, 'to dress in line ;' nobody but 
himself. I have lived to see the day when sixty Republican 
Senators, the Senator from Michigan among them, followed 
in his footsteps with the most implicit obedience. I have seen 
that which I never expected to see ; I have seen the man who 
repudiated your candidate in 1852, who spat upon your plat- 
form, at the head of your councils for nearly ten years in the 
United States Senate. Where, then, were you who now talk 
about nothing but freedom? Where, then, were you who 
boast about the enfranchisement of the African race? Where, 
then, were you who are now so ready to denounce a man who 
stands up for the institutions of his country? Where were 
you, Republican Senators, in 1852, when the Senator from 
Massachusetts stood, if not solitary, at least alone? Where 
were you? One-half of you, or nearly so, voting for Franklin 
Pierce, and the rest of you, for Winfield Scott." 

Perhaps it would be unjust to assert that all of those who 
so rabidly advocated the acquisition of San Domingo were 
actuated by purely selfish motives and were willing to get 
possession of the place for use by us as a coaling station and 



1. Sumner supported Hale and Julian, anti-slavery candidates, in 1852. 

[187] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

harbor without regard to moral or other considerations. 
President Grant and some who agreed with him, argued that 
the taking of the island under our protection would compen- 
sate its people for the use of their harbor, etc. On the other 
hand, Sumner held that such a step would simply induce 
greedy speculators to rush in and gradually usurp the govern- 
ment of the islanders, overturn their institutions and run 
things to suit themselves and claim the protection of the 
United States Government while doing so; just as was the 
case with the Germans in Samoa ; just as a handful of Ameri- 
cans since did in Hawaii; just as, with more propriety per- 
haps, all of the European powers have done or are doing in 
Africa. At all events, it would seem that Sumner never 
showed greater consistency in all his career than he did in op- 
posing this movement for the seizure of San Domingo. In 
obedience to the behest of the slave power, the United States 
at one time made strenuous efforts to secure Cuba ; we even 
went so far as to indorse what was known as the Ostend 
Manifesto. But all these attempts fell flat, as did Walker's 
invasion of Central America. Had the United States succeeded 
in any of these designs there is little doubt but that grave 
complications would have arisen that might have had a serious 
bearing on the results of the Civil War. It was due primarily 
to the influence of Mr. Sumner that the movement for the an- 
nexation of San Domingo was defeated. And to punish him 
for his course in this connection, he was removed from the 
chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 
a post which he had held from the time the Republican party 
first assumed the reins of government. And before his death 
in 1874, Sumner found himself standing almost alone again in 
the ranks of the Republican party, which he had helped to 
found, just as he had stood in 1852 before its birth. 



[188] 



CHAPTER XXII 



Outrages in the South and Legislation for Their Suppression — 
Sumner's Civil Rights Bill — Report of the Investigation of Ku 
Kluxism — The Force Bill — The Suppression of the Ku Klux 
by Troops. 

The war not only left scores, if not the majority, of there- 
tofore rich men in the South comparatively poor, but turned 
loose in that section a horde of originally poor whites whose 
occupation as slave-drivers had been taken away. Landless in 
a land of planter-barons they had been but parasites and in 
many cases, worse off than the slaves. They hated the Ne- 
groes desperately because slavery rendered all kinds of labor 
degrading to a white man, and they were constantly kept on 
the verge of starvation through their false pride. As soon as 
the colored people were left without the protection of their 
former masters they were set upon and outraged in every 
way. The situation became such in 1871 that Congress was 
compelled to take further steps in the direction of suppressing 
disorders. The Ku Klux Klan was claiming its hundreds of 
black victims almost daily; even white men who dared to 
show any sympathy for the freedmen were mobbed. There 
were many northern white people in the South at this time ; 
some had gone there previously to administer to the Union 
soldiers during the war, and remained ; others, many of them 
brave women, had left their northern homes especially on er- 
rands of mercy to the distressed freedmen. These were teach- 
ing and establishing schools. The report of the Congressional 
committee appointed to investigate and report on this situa- 
tion showed that nearly forty thousand men in the State of 
North Carolina alone belonged to this gigantic league of 
marauding assassins. The nights were made awful by the 
weird lights and terrifying whoops of the Ku Klux. In the 
stillness of the midnight hours these ominous warnings could 
be heard in connection with the sounds of horses' hoofs 
against the frozen ground and then the knock at the cabin 

[189] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

door. There would be no light about the hovel and perhaps 
no strong armed man within, only an old grand sire who had 
spent his many winters under the yoke ; or a mother who 
would but draw her little children nearer to her as a silent 
response to their childish queries as axes battered in the cabin 
door. Neither the gray hairs of the old man nor the prayers 
and tears of the women, nor the piteous wails of the little 
children could avail to restrain the remorseless hands of the 
Ku Klux bent upon their work of outrage and terror. Exorcism 
by legislation had been tried in vain. But in April, 1871, an- 
other Act was passed by Congress for the enforcement of the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, especially designed 
to meet the case of the Ku Klux. The Act made the towns, mu- 
nicipalities and counties in which outrages occurred respon- 
sible in damages to those aggrieved. Even this piece of legis- 
lation proved to be utterly worthless to effect the purpose 
for which it was designed. The difficulties experienced in get- 
ting Congress to pass even so reasonable an Act tend to 
show how rapidly the radicals lost ground after the last of 
the seceded states returned to the Union. In the meantime 
the commission appointed to look into the Ku Klux and other 
outrages in the South made their report to Congress. The 
report disclosed a most cowardly plot to deprive the freedmen 
of all benefits of their freedom in spite of constitutional 
amendments and Federal statutes. When the matter was 
taken up it caused a most animated debate in both Houses. 
For, while there were some who scored the South for at- 
tempting such a mean method of taking revenge for its de- 
feat on the field of battle, there were others who, in days gone 
by, had defended slavery, defended slave-holders in the breed- 
ing of slaves like cattle by encouraging the destruction of 
feminine chastity and the unrestrained sensuality of the men ; 
who had condoned the morals of the master who would beget 
children by his slave women and then send his own offspring 
to the auction block, true to their traditions and history in 
public life, these men defended the Ku Klux Klan. They bra- 
zenly asserted that the courts without the aid or intervention 
of the Federal authorities in the South, afforded ample pro- 

[190] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

tection against all the violence complained of, though it was 
well-known, the report under consideration being sufficient 
to remove any doubt of the fact if any previously existed, 
that those aggrieved by these outrages had no voice in court ; 
and that if any one should be arrested he would most likely 
be tried by jurymen who themselves were participants in the 
crimes of the prisoner at the bar. It was truly said that the 
courts of that section at that time were a "mockery, where 
a perjured judge, a perjured jury and perjured witnesses 
swore the rights of the poor away." It was a day of sore 
trial for the landless, homeless, moneyless, friendless colored 
people, while the voice of a Republican Congress rang out 
over the distant hills in statutes which sounded like approach- 
ing allies that never came nearer. Finally after a hard 
struggle, a bill was matured and passed on the 19th of April, 
1871, for the suppression of the Ku Klux. This was the most 
effective piece of legislation ever passed by the reconstruc- 
tionists ; in fact, if we judge by the immediate results, it was 
second only to the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished 
slavery. The efficiency of this measure was wholly due to the 
fact that it was backed up by Federal arms ; it was known 
and will ever be known as "The Force Bill," 1 and its passage 
was largely due to the energy, of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler. 
The bitterness with which General Butler was attacked on ac- 
count of his championing the measure by the southerners who 
were now all back in Congress, was increased by their hatred 
of him engendered during the war. General Butler had been 
one of the first officers to try out and approve of colored men 
as soldiers. Every effort had been made inside the army and 
outside to disqualify colored men as soldiers. It was believed 
that the white officers in charge of colored troops often de- 
liberately led them into traps to be slaughtered and in other 
ways dealt treacherously by them ; being firmly convinced 
that such was the case, General Butler took the colored troops 
in his army under his personal command in an attack upon 
a fort near Petersburg, which the Confederates regarded as 
impregnable. After witnessing that magnificent charge in 

1. The Federal Elections Bill, agitated later and defeated by Mr. Blaine, the 
Speaker of the House, is sometimes referred to as the "Force Bill." 

[191] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

which nearly six hundred of his colored troops fell without a 
waver in their line, General Butler swore an oath that he 
would ever afterwards champion the rights of the colored 
people of this country as long as he lived. He faithfully kept 
his oath. 2 Another thing, besides his vigorous conduct of af- 
fairs while in charge at New Orleans, that made General But- 
ler especially hated by southerners, was his characteristic re- 
buff of Colonel Mallory, at Fortress Monroe, when he came 
to General Butler's camp in quest of certain of his slaves who 
had taken refuge in the Union camp. General Butler remind- 
ed Colonel Mallory that if the alleged slaves were not his 
property he had no right to them and that if they were claim- 
ed as his property, he, General Butler, would hold them as 
"contraband" of war. This became one of the most talked of 
incidents that happened during the war. And so the debate 
on the Force Bill was memorable not only because of the bit- 
ter attacks of the southerners upon General Butler, but be- 
cause the opposition was supported by many others. A short 
history of the bill and the struggle to pass it follows : On 
March 10, 1871, Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, of Ohio, introduced 
a bill for the employment of the land and naval forces of the 
United States for the enforcement of the laws in the states 
lately in rebellion and for the protection of all persons within 
the jurisdiction of the United States. On March 17, Mr. 
Peters moved the appointment of a committee to look into 
the affairs of that section, of which General Butler was made 
chairman, Mr. Peters having declined to serve on the commit- 
tee which consisted of thirteen members. On this same day 
the Senate passed a concurrent resolution for the appoint- 
ment of a joint committee to consist of seven Senators and 
nine Representatives for the investigation of these affairs. 
The House amended this so as to have seven Senators and 
fourteen Representatives and to this the Senate agreed. 
While this arrangement did away with the Butler Committee, 
Butler was still of the number appointed by the Speaker on 
the joint committee. In the meantime, President Grant trans- 
mitted a special message to Congress asking for the enact- 



2. Butler's Book, Chap. XVI. 

[192] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ment of some law for the protection of life, liberty and prop- 
erty in the South, and stating that the carrying of the mails 
and the collection of the revenue were endangered, and that 
evidence of these facts were before Congress. This message 
was referred to a special committee of nine, of which Mr. Shel- 
labarger was chairman and General Butler was named second. 
Mr. Shellabarger reported a bill for the enforcement of the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in substance, as fol- 
lows : Section 1. Provided for the abolition of all laws, ordin- 
ances, regulations, etc., of any state which discriminated be- 
tween citizens on account of race, color, etc. Section 2. Pro- 
vided penalties for any breach of the laws guaranteeing civil 
or political rights. Section 4. Provided for the suspension of 
the writ of habeas corpus and the placing of rebellious districts 
under martial law. The bill in this shape was passed by both 
Houses. In pursuance of this statute, the President, on Oc- 
tober 12, 1871, issued a proclamation calling upon the Ku Klux 
and other like unlawful organizations to disband and to de- 
liver to the United States marshals their arms, ammunition, 
disguises, etc., within five days. The warning went unheeded 
and on the 17th day of that month the writ of habeas corpus was 
suspended in all sections in which Ku Klux organizations were 
known to exist. Several hundred persons were arrested and 
as many as were proven guilty in a minor degree were re- 
leased, but 168 were held for trial. When it was discovered 
that those sent to enforce the law did not intend to perjure 
themselves and connive at the crimes they were sent to sup- 
press, the Ku Klux fled and even many absconded who were 
not active in the organization for fear of being suspected. No- 
body was ever visited with condign punishment for participat- 
ing in these outrages ; indeed, it was only necessary to show 
a determination on the part of the authorities to enforce law 
and order in order to have a quietus put on the operations of 
the splendidly organized Ku Klux. The difficulty in making 
reconstruction effective had been with the Federal commis- 
sioners and agents who were sent South to execute the de- 
crees of Congress. These gentlemen would leave Washington 
with a great deal of gusto but on reaching their destination 

[1931 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

would apparently league themselves with the rankest oppo- 
nents of the Washington Government and all that they would 
do between entertainments at their hotels or quarters would 
be the writing of letters back to some official bewailing the 
state of affairs in the South in order to hold on to their job. 
Even the Federal soldiers quartered in the South were in 
many cases meaner and more to be feared than the native- 
born rabble. It was no uncommon thing for some of these 
Federal soldiers to take property from the poor freedmen and 
give them a kick for thanks. These braves would often strip 
freedmen of their clothing on meeting them, leaving their 
own, reeking with vermin, in exchange ; and if the unfortun- 
ate freedman complained, he was lucky to get away with his 
life. But the officers and men sent to suppress the Ku Klux, 
besides the mere duty, had the incentive of something that sa- 
vored of military glory ; they would not have it said that they 
were incapable of accomplishing the task that was set before 
them. In his annual message of December, 1871, referring to 
the reign of terror and Ku Kluxism in the South, President 
Grant said: "Information was received of combinations of 
this character in certain counties of South Carolina. Careful 
investigation was made and it was found that in nine counties 
such combinations were active and powerful, embracing a 
sufficient number of the citizens to control the local author- 
ity." But this condition was known to have been general 
throughout the South at that time. While the South has 
since seen much of mob violence in one form or another, such 
outrages as were perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan until 
broken up by the Force Bill, have never been repeated. 

On March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner introduced a measure en- 
titled "A bill supplementary to an Act to protect all citizens 
in their civil rights, and furnish means for their vindication, 
passed April 9, 1866." The first section set forth the rights 
of every citizen without regard to color, etc., to an "equal and 
impartial enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, fa- 
cility, or privilege furnished by common carriers whether on 
land or water ; by inn-keepers ; by licensed owners, managers 
or lessees of theatres or other places of public amusement ; by 

[194] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

trustees, teachers and other officers of common schools and 
other institutions of learning, etc." 3 In a short explanatory 
speech Mr. Sumner said: "I believe that our colored fellow- 
citizens are exposed to outrages which the Congress of the 
United States can arrest ; and so long as Congress fails to ar- 
rest them, the Republican party with which I am associated 
and with whose welfare I am identified, must suffer. How 
can the Republican party turn to their colored fellow-citizens 
for their votes when they leave them to be insulted as they 
now are whenever they travel upon a railroad car or enter a 
hotel ? Senators may vote this measure down ; they may take 
the responsibility ; but I will take mine, God willing." Sena- 
tors did vote the measure "down," and continued to vote it 
down at every session of Congress until the time of Mr. 
Sumner's death in 1874; for Mr. Sumner introduced it at every 
session, and in his last moments on his dying bed murmured: 
"'Don't let Civil Rights fail." And his Republican colleagues, 
remembering this injunction and, heeding this voice from the 
tomb, passed the Sumner Civil Rights Bill at the next session 
of Congress after its author's death, though the Supreme 
Court declared it unconstitutional. 



3. This was known as the Sumner Civil Rights Bill. It was finally passed 
March 1, 1875, after Mr. Sumner's death, and declared unconstitutional. See 
Appendix. 



[195] 



CHAPTER XXIII 



General Amnesty — Sumner's Civil Rights Bill and the Battle Over 
It — Civil Rights Defeated — Sumner's Extemporaneous Speech 
— Death of Sumner — Civil Rights Bill Passed at Last. 

The question of granting amnesty to the participants in the 
rebellion began to occupy the mind of the people and of Con- 
gress very soon after the cessation of hostilities ; but the con- 
ditions were such that every time the matter made its appear- 
ance in any tangible form, it was smitten down. There were 
many who, like President Johnson, thought an amnesty act 
should have been among the first things to be passed by Con- 
gress after the surrender of Lee. A vast majority, however, 
both inside and out of Congress, thought that there was no 
necessity for haste, especially in view of the well-known feel- 
ing of the southern people as evidenced by their continued 
hostile attitude towards the government in consequence of 
which there was inserted in the Fourteenth Amendment a 
clause expressly disfranchising certain classes who took a 
leading part in the rebellion. Whenever one of these pro- 
scribed persons desired to vote or run for an office, it was 
necessary to have Congress remove his disabilities. This was 
done from time to time and numbers were re-enfranchised in 
this manner on their petition to Congress. Several attempts at 
the passage of a general amnesty bill had failed. When Con- 
gress met in December, 1870, conditions were much more fav- 
orable for the passage of such a measure than they had been at 
any time before, as the framework of reconstruction was re- 
garded as having been completed and about all the states had 
returned to the Union. The House accordingly passed a gen- 
eral amnesty act among the first things it did at this session. 
When the bill was taken up in the Senate, however, Senator 
Sumner moved to amend it by attaching his Civil Rights bill, 
which he had constantly kept before the Senate at each ses- 
sion and never lost an opportunity of pressing, though he was 

[196] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

rarely ever able to get it beyond an adverse report from the 
Judiciary Committee to which it was always referred. The 
measure now coming up as an amendment to the important 
amnesty bill, the Senate was compelled to vote upon it. After 
a long debate a vote was reached which stood 28 to 28 when 
the amendment was adopted by the deciding vote of the Vice- 
President. When the question recurred on the main propo- 
sition, however, the whole thing was defeated by a vote of 33 
to 19, a two-thirds vote being necessary. On May 13, 1871, 
General Butler reported from the House Judicary Committee 
another amnesty bill providing in simple terms for the re- 
moval of all disabilities arising out of war or on account of 
the war, excepting from its provisions, however, members of 
the Confederate government and persons who had been edu- 
cated at West Point or Annapolis and had taken part in the 
war against the Union. This passed under a suspension of 
the rules on the same day it was reported. At this point Mr. 
Elliott moved to instruct the Judiciary Committee to report a 
Civil Rights bill forthwith, but the motion failed. This 
House bill was taken up in the Senate on May 21, and found 
Mr. Sumner again ready with his Civil Rights bill as an 
amendment. When the Senate voted down this amendment 
by a vote of 29 to 13, Mr. Sumner declared his determination 
never to vote for amnesty unless it should be preceded by or 
at least accompanied with a civil rights measure ; and after 
another effort he succeeded in getting his measure again be- 
fore the Senate. The debate as to the relevancy of the meas- 
ure to the main bill consumed nearly a week before the 
Senate finally gave in and decided that the Civil Rights bill 
should be considered and voted upon. This was a great vic- 
tory for Sumner, who was now being supported by such able 
colleagues as Senators Edmunds, Conklin and Nye. Senator 
Carpenter, the very talented orator and tactician from Wis- 
consin, was in favor of the measure for its effects upon the 
South, he claimed, regarding it simply as a punishment, but 
thought it unconstitutional, on which account he worked vig- 
orously against it. He offered as a substitute for the Sumner 
bill, a measure that would be applicable only to such corpora- 

[197] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

tions and places as did business under the authority of a 
state, while the Sumner bill took in hotels, railroads and 
everything of the kind generally and particularly the right of 
colored men to serve on juries. The Carpenter substitute was 
voted down and the fight on the Sumner bill continued. In- 
deed, the Sumner Civil Rights Bill agitated the whole country. 
It was the theme of sermons, the subject of debate in lyceum 
and school, and the topic to which leading editors daily re- 
ferred in their papers. The most bitter attacks were made 
upon Sumner in the public press and nearly every mail 
brought him letters threatening his life ; but nothing but 
death caused Mr. Sumner to cease his efforts to have 
what he called this "capstone placed upon the column of 
reconstruction." By his earnestness he whipped many of his 
lukewarm colleagues into line or constrained them to keep 
silent. There was nothing more certain than that amnesty 
had to come. It had the strongest public sentiment in its favor. 
The only care needed was to hold this sentiment in check un- 
til the beneficiaries of the act should fully appreciate it as an 
act of grace rather than regard it as a concession to their de- 
mands. On the other hand, civil rights was a matter that 
might easily be side-tracked without materially affecting the 
interests of the dominant party to which the Negroes were 
destined to stick at all events. Sumner had succeeded in de- 
feating the amnesty bill and the struggle had been kept up 
until all hands were sick of it. And so on May 21 (1871) after 
a long day's session, it was decided to spend the evening in 
debate upon the amnesty bill, which was to be voted on the 
next day after voting upon Sumner Civil Rights Bill which, it 
was agreed, should be passed at the same time. When the 
session was prolonged until late and still later in the night 
many of the Senators left for their homes, and among these 
was Mr. Sumner. Between 5 and 6 o'clock the next morn- 
ing, when there was scarcely a quorum left in the chamber, 
Mr. Carpenter, taking advantage of the absence of Mr. Sum- 
ner, called up the latter's Civil Rights bill, had everything 
stricken out except the bare title and had inserted his (Car- 
penter's) substitute Civil Rights bill which had been previously 

[198] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

rejected, but which was now easily passed by the aid of the 
Democrats, who voted for it to a man. Mr. Sumner, who 
had been aroused from his bed and informed of what was 
being done, hurried to the Senate, but arrived just too late to 
have the matter held up. The amnesty bill was now called up 
and passed, the Senate having technically kept its word both 
as to not voting "until the next day" and also as to voting on 
civil rights before passing the amnesty bill. Since the am- 
nesty bill had already been passed by the House, nothing more 
remained to be done to make it a law except the attachment 
of the President's signature ; on the other hand, the civil 
rights bill having originated in the Senate, emasculated as it 
was, had still to be juggled with in the House, where its fate 
was doubtful. Excited by the trick that had been played on 
him, Mr. Sumner made the most impassioned extemporaneous 
speech ever attempted by him in Congress. After referring 
to the unfair advantage taken to pass upon such important 
legislation when a bare quorum of the Senate was present, 
Mr. Sumner said : "I sound the cry ; the rights of the colored 
people have been sacrificed in this chamber where the Repub- 
lican party has a large majority ; that party by its history, its 
traditions and all its professions bound to their vindication. 
I sound the cry. Let it go forth that the sacrifice has been 
perpetrated. Amnesty has been adopted, but the rights of the 
colored race, where are they? Sir: I call upon the colored 
people to take notice of the way in which their rights are pal- 
tered with. I wish them to understand that here in this cham- 
ber with a large Republican majority, this sacrifice has been 
accomplished, and let them see how it was done." We might 
here add that the sounding of that cry had but little effect 
upon the colored voters in connection with the political party 
whose chief representative had signed the proclamation of 
their freedom, and who, with a loyalty characteristic of the 
race, voted solidly for that party to the end of their genera- 
tion notwithstanding the many times their interests were 
sacrificed by a Congress that had a large Republican majority. 
Again and again since that time such things have occurred in 
the same chamber where there was a Republican majority, 

[199] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

that might justify a man like Sumner in "sounding the cry." 
Bills intended to secure fair Federal elections j 1 bills in- 
tended to extend Federal aid to education when it was plain- 
ly seen that the southern states were either unable or un- 
willing longer to support public schools for colored children, 2 
have all died, like Sumner's Civil Rights Bill, in the Senate 
where the Republicans had a large majority. Whatever regret 
the reformed Republicans may have on account of having be- 
stowed the suffrage upon the freedmen, surely the old party 
could not complain. The elective franchise was, perhaps, 
never used more conscientiously than by the freedmen. So 
far from selling their vote, many of them suffered not only 
the loss of employment but even the loss of life itself for the 
sake of the Republican party even after it had openly ceased 
to champion their cause, which attitude was more than em- 
phasized not only by the inactivity of Congressmen but by 
the activity of Republican judges on the bench of the highest 
court in the land. 

When the Carpenter substitute Civil Rights Bill reached the 
House it was deferred and kept in committee until June 7, 
1872, when it was called up and an endeavor made to pass it 
under a suspension of the rules, but it failed by a vote of 83 to 
73, a two-thirds vote being necessary to pass it. There were 
84 members present who did not vote. 

But Mr. Sumner did not give up the fight. When the Forty- 
third Congress met in December, 1873, he presented a peti- 
tion bearing on the subject which contained many thousand 
signatures. As the country became more and more settled 
and people returned to their daily occupations as merchants, 
etc., less and less interest was taken in what Congress was 
or was not doing about such matters as civil rights for freed- 
men and slower and slower turned the reconstruction mill. 
Then, too, the great champion of civil rights was destined 
soon to lay down his burden and rest ; for early in the year 
1874, March 11, he reached the state in which all men are un- 
questionably equal, and where there are no problems for the 



1. Defeated by Blaine. 

2. Defeated by Quay and Sherman. 



[200] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

future, neither of races nor kindreds nor tongues. Both Sum- 
ner and Stevens, two of the most conspicuous champions the 
colored race ever had in Congress, each devoted the last days 
of his career to a single issue for which he was fighting when 
death closed the debate ; with Stevens it was his endeavor to 
persuade his colleagues to provide some support for the 
penniless f reedmen ; with Sumner it was civil rights. 



[201 



CHAPTER XXIV 



The Election of Hayes — The Removal of Federal Troops from the 
South and the End of the Carpet-Bag Regime. 

The next national act of more or less consequence to the 
colored people was the removal of the Federal troops from 
the South by President Hayes. Attempts have been made to 
reflect great discredit upon Mr. Hayes because he ordered the 
removal of these troops at that time, but if there was any 
blame attached to the action, it would hardly seem fair to 
place it all on the shoulders of Mr. Hayes, who seems to 
have been made the scapegoat of his party. The circum- 
stances leading up to the nomination and the election of Mr. 
Hayes to the presidency are very interesting, and to tell the 
whole story would require a large volume in itself. There 
was a great deal of excitement throughout the country just 
prior to the assembling of the Republican National Conven- 
tion in 1876, caused by various rumors to the effect that Gen- 
eral Grant would be nominated for a third term as President. 
Grant himself would not say whether or not he would run if 
nominated, but spoke of the matter in such a manner as to 
lead the public to believe that he would not object "if the ex- 
igencies of his party demanded it." In other words, as they 
say, he placed himself "in the hands of his friends." Before 
the convention assembled, the House of Representatives, then 
Democratic, took cognizance of the matter and placed on 
record a resolution directly condemning the third term scheme 
as "undemocratic and unpatriotic." The vote on this resolu- 
tion was 234 to 18, embracing in the affirmative every Demo- 
cratic member and all but 18 of the Republicans. There were 
in Congress, however, some strong supporters of Grant for a 
third term and among these were Senator Conklin, of New 
York, and Senator Morton, of Indiana. When Grant finally 
withdrew from the contest, many of his supporters them- 
selves became aspirants for the nomination: Morton, Conk- 

[202] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

lin, Bristow (Grant's Secretary of the Treasury) and others, 
among whom were James G. Blaine and R. B. Hayes. 

Of all the candidates, Mr. Blaine was the most popular 
with the politicians. He had been for six years Speaker of 
the House and had become the acknowledged leader of the 
minority when the Republicans lost their ascendancy in that 
body. Hayes had been twice Governor of Ohio but was little 
known outside of his state. Bristow had just created a boom 
in his favor by his vigorous prosecution of the "Whiskey 
Ring." Morton was well known, and while nothing detri- 
mental could be said about him, he was unable to unite his 
party on him. Blaine would have evidently received the nomi- 
nation but for the fact that his name was seriously connected 
with two railroad scandals, the Union Pacific & Little Rock 
and the Fort Smith roads. The investigation into these affairs 
is said to have brought a great deal of the alleged corruption 
dangerously near Blaine's door, and, as a consequence, blight- 
ed his chances for the nomination, besides he had the power- 
ful opposition of Conklin, then at the very height of his power 
in New York. At the opening of the convention Mr. Blaine 
had more than double the number of delegates of any other 
one of the aspirants, but after the first ballot his strength be- 
gan to wane until the fifth ballot, when Mr. Hayes was given 
384 out of the 756 votes and was declared nominated. The 
years between 1872 and 1876 were memorable for panics and 
hard times, and, as usual in such cases, the people were in- 
clined to blame the party in power for the distressing condi- 
tions. There was a great cry for "reform," a call for a "new 
man" with a new policy as against what they called "Grant- 
ism" and "Caesarism." 

The Democrats nominated Samuel J. Tilden, of New York. 
Mr. Tilden's record was clean and the comparative obscurity 
of Mr. Hayes gave him little advantage over his able Demo- 
cratic opponent. Besides, Mr. Tilden had just covered himself 
with glory by successfully prosecuting the famous, or rather 
infamous, "Tweed Ring," by which course he won the enmity 
of Tammany Hall, a thing in itself which most people of the 
time seemed to have regarded as a sure sign of political purity. 

[203] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

The platform upon which Mr. Hayes invited support was a 
clean-cut instrument. It was a plea for the union of the 
states and the supremacy of the Constitution ; for the liberty 
and equality of all men before the law ; for the vigorous exer- 
cise of constitutional powers in the enforcement of law and 
order ; for the most earnest support of the free school system ; 
for a protective tariff; for pensioning Federal soldiers; for re- 
sumption of specie payment. The campaign was rather spirit- 
less and tame. On the morning following the election it was 
claimed and generally believed that Tilden had been elected, 
having carried every southern state besides New York, New 
Jersey, Indiana and Connecticut, giving him 203 electoral 
votes out of a total of 369. After this early announcement 
everybody became silent during the rest of the day, but on the 
second day after the election a report was flashed over the 
country to the effect that Hayes had carried South Carolina, 
Florida and Louisiana, giving him a majority of one vote in 
the electoral college. Cries of fraud were rife and the whole 
country was thrown into a fierce agitation. There were ru- 
mors of all kinds of deals being consummated for one purpose 
or another, but no one seemed able to fasten on to anything 
definite. The key to a cipher dispatch was alleged to have 
been found shortly after this time which revealed a deliberate 
plot on the part of some of the powers of both parties to de- 
fraud Mr. Tilden out of his seat as President. It was claimed 
that some leading Democrats of the South conspired with the 
Republicans to have Hayes seated with the understanding 
that the Federal troops were to be removed from the South 
and a more liberal policy pursued in dealing with that section 
generally ; and that this deal was the more easily consum- 
mated because it was known that all sorts of fraud had been 
practiced in the South in connection with the election, and it 
was feared that some kind of investigation might follow if a 
more serious dispute should arise ; while on the other hand, 
the Republicans were willing to condone the alleged fraud on 
condition that Hayes should be seated. However one may 
think about the rumors afloat, it is definitely known that mat- 
ters were terribly mixed up. To begin with, there were two 

[204] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

sets of returns and certificates from South Carolina, Florida 
and Oregon. The question as to how the electoral votes 
should be counted became so grave that Congress had to in- 
tervene by an Act establishing the Electoral Commission of 
March 4, 1877. This commission was composed of fifteen 
members, eight Republicans and seven Democrats ; and there 
is little doubt but that the seating of Hayes as President in- 
stead of Tilden was due wholly to the make-up of this com- 
mission, for every man voted for his party candidate, and by 
a process of "counting in and counting out" as it is said, the 
Presidency fell to Hayes. The popular vote for Tilden was 
very much larger than that for Hayes, and this fact, on be- 
coming known, added its quota to the general excitement of 
the time. Whether there was any agreement or understand- 
ing with Mr. Hayes and his friends about removing the troops 
or not, it was quite a natural thing to consider, under the cir- 
cumstances. The country had been sufficiently stirred over 
recent events and anything that tended to allay feeling and 
bring about better conditions would naturally appeal to those 
in control of the government. The times for some considerable 
period before this had been panicy and hard and the grumb- 
ling on the part of the southern people at having troops quar- 
tered on them in times of peace was beginning to re-echo in 
the North and West, notwithstanding the fact that the plat- 
form upon which Mr. Hayes was elected had a decided ring 
for the enforcement of law and order by use of the Federal 
arms, if necessary. At all events, the Federal troops were re- 
moved from the South and the reconstruction governments in 
that section began at once to disintegrate ; the Carpet-baggers 
had to leave in the wake of the soldiers and the whole Repub- 
lican party in the southern states became demoralized and has 
been demoralized ever since. 

The reconstruction period proper may be said to have end- 
ed with President Grant's second term. After this time there 
was not only a cessation of such legislation but an apparent 
reaction in the other direction. Many of the statutes passed 
between 1865 and 1875 were either annulled by the courts, 
openly repudiated by the states or smothered to death by an 

[205] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

adverse public sentiment. But the most vital portion of the 
legislation enacted with a special view to the interest of the 
colored people still remains and always must remain because 
these statutes and regulations, like the fortunes of the colored 
people themselves, are connected and inseparably bound with 
the general welfare of the nation. The last three amendments 
to the Constitution are the bulwarks not only of the colored 
man's liberty, but must be regarded with an equally jealous 
eye by every member of our heterogeneous population. The 
Fourteenth Amendment especially is not only the palladium 
of the people's liberty, but business enterprises in corporate 
form find in this amendment an harbor of refuge. Then there 
is our great free school system, though deformed and much 
changed from what it was in its fair infancy in the South, it 
still remains a monument to the constructive genius of the 
carpet-bagger. 



[206] 



CHAPTER XXV 



The Education of the Colored People — Ante-Bellum Teachers and 
Promoters of Education — The Beginning of the Higher Edu- 
cation — The work of General Howard's Bureau — The Begin- 
ning of the Free Public School Under Government Supervision 
—The Final Turning Over of Everything to the States — The 
State Policy: Disfranchisement of Negroes; Curtailment of 
School Privileges ; Discriminations Countenanced by the 
Courts — The End. 

Most all history begins in romance ; and scarcely anything 
more romantic can be found than an account of the early 
struggle to educate the children of the colored race in Ameri- 
ca. While public records abound in statutes and regulations 
making it a crime or at least some grade of a public offense 
to teach Negroes, there is little or nothing in such records to 
show how the movement in the other direction actually 
started. For information concerning these beginnings, there- 
fore, one must turn to the lives of individuals and the records 
of private institutions. 

Among the earliest efforts in this direction was the school 
established by Anthony Benezet, a Quaker, at Philadelphia, 
in about the year 1770. After this there were various other 
efforts in a smaller way, perhaps, made in and about Phila- 
delphia, to afford some educational facilities to the colored 
people. All of these were taken under a sort of recognition 
by the Board of Control of Philadelphia in 1822. * About ten 
years later or in 1830, Richard Humphreys, who was also a 
Philadelphia Quaker, left a bequest of ten thousand dollars 
to be used for the education of the colored youth. Some six 
persons, all members of the Society of Friends or Quakers, 
constituted themselves trustees, took over the fund and set 
about the work of establishing a school upon the Hum- 
phrey's foundation. After some twenty years these trustees 
succeeded in securing a building within the city limits for 
their purpose and established the Institute for Colored Youth 



1. See Curtis' Hist, of Pub. Schools of Phila., p. IS. 

[207] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

in 1851. This was made a sort of graded or high school and 
continued as such until it was moved to Cheyney, in Chester 
County, Pa., in 1902, where the work is still carried on with 
particular attention to certain industrial features. Meager as 
these few facilities were, they made Philadelphia a sort of 
educational center for colored people. There were some 
worthy efforts made in this direction about this same period 
in some other parts of the country ; notably among these was 
the school for colored girls opened by Miss Prudence Cran- 
dall, at Canterbury, Conn., in 1831, on account of which she 
was mobbed and outraged in every conceivable manner. 

At the "First Annual Convention of the People of Color," 
held at Philadelphia, in 1831, a committee was appointed to 
devise a plan whereby funds might be raised for the purpose 
of starting a school. This committee afterwards reported to 
the convention that a plan had been submitted by Messrs. 
Garrison and Tappan and Rev. S. S. Jocelyn, who were pres- 
ent and addressed the meeting, for the liberal "education of 
young men of color on the manual labor system." The plan 
contemplated the establishment of a school at New Haven 
as soon as twenty thousand dollars could be raised. New 
Haven had been selected as the location of the institution "on 
account of the liberality of the people of Connecticut — the 
people are friendly, pious and humane." Little did they dream 
that within two years from that time the Connecticut Legis- 
lature, at the instance of "the good people of Canterbury," 
was destined to pass a law making it a serious offense to 
maintain a boarding school for Negroes anywhere in the 
state, in order to break up Miss Crandall's school. 

There was also Miss Myrtilla Miner, who, after having seen 
much of slavery while teaching a private school in Missis- 
sippi, went to Washington in 1851 and with the one hundred 
dollars which she had saved, opened the first school for 
colored girls in the District of Columbia. Miss Miner began 
with six pupils in a wreck of a building, but within a year she 
had forty pupils and a building worth more than four thou- 
sand dollars, one thousand of which having been donated by 
Mrs. Stowe from the proceeds of the sale of "Uncle Tom's 

[208] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

Cabin." Like Miss Crandall, Miss Miner had visited upon her 
nearly every species of outrage known to the catalogue of 
villiany. Then there were a few more or less obscure insti- 
tutions, like Oberlin, under President Finney, that braved the 
tide of odium and public contempt to admit a few colored 
students. During and just after the war, however, heroes and 
heroines in this field came thick and fast. 

There was Dr. Tupper, who went into the woods of North 
Carolina while they were yet dim with the smoke of battle 
and resounding with the echoing footsteps of retreating 
troops, bought land with the three hundred dollars which he 
had saved as a private in the army, and w T ith his own hands 
hewed the logs and constructed the building that was to be- 
come Shaw University ; and his magnificent wife, one of New 
England's most choice women, gave her dowry to this project 
of her husband, and when he died a few years ago, leaving her 
poor and alone, she only requested to be permitted to pass the 
remainder of her days in one of the university buildings. 
There was Rev. J. G. Fee, who was driven from his father's 
roof in Kentucky for founding Berea College ; and Armstrong, 
to whose memory Hampton Institute is a fitting monument. 
And there are hundreds of noble women who went South to 
be abused and many of them to die while trying to help the 
union soldiers or to encourage the freedmen in their struggle 
to learn. 2 These nurses, etc., who were with the Union army 
having found the Negroes very apt and anxious to learn, vol- 
unteered their services as teachers, and by their reports in- 
duced many others to go into this field. Many of the depart- 
ment clerks at Washington constituted themselves into a 
teaching force and opened up night schools. Howard Uni- 
versity, now by far the largest and best equipped institution 
for the higher education of the Negroes in the country, act- 
ually grew out of these unorganized efforts on the part of de- 
partment clerks, which were brought to the attention of the 
leading men of the nation at Washington. General Howard, 
who was in charge of the Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees and 
Abandoned Lands, was given almost unlimited power to aid 



2. See "The Negro Common School," Atlanta Univ. Pubs., by DuBois, 1901. 

[209] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

and succor his wards in any direction his discretion might dic- 
tate ; and as the representative of the government, his bureau 
began at once to assume control and direct the organization 
of the work which was to form the basis of a public free 
school system. 

Miss Miner's school was incorporated by Congress in 1863, 
about twelve years after it was established. This was about 
the first time Congress had taken any definite or decided ac- 
tion with regard to anything in the line of education for col- 
ored people although it was by no means the first time the at- 
tention of that body had been called to the matter in one way 
or another. In 1862 Mr. Edward H. Rollins, of New Hamp- 
shire, in bringing forward his bill for the abolition of the 
Black Codes of the District of Columbia, which was approved 
May 21 of that year, had attached to the measure a provision 
setting aside ten per cent, of all the taxes paid by the colored 
people of the District for the education of their children. 
Under this act trustees to receive and disburse this fund 
were appointed. By an Act passed July 23, 1866, the cities of 
Washington and Georgetown were required to pay over to 
the trustees of the Colored Schools of the District of Colum- 
bia such proportionate share of all moneys collected for edu- 
cational purposes as the number of colored children of school 
age should bear to the whole number of both white and col- 
ored children of such age. The effect of this law was to equal- 
ize the school advantages between the races without regard 
to the amount of taxes paid by either ; and this is the law in 
all the states, perhaps, though it is deliberately ignored in the 
South generally. 3 

The appropriation for the support of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau for the year 1866 carried a large item for educational 
purposes. General Howard had been so successful in the or- 
ganization of schools, etc., that Congress was inclined to deal 
liberally with his bureau in appropriating funds for this pur- 
pose. He dwelt largely upon this branch of his work in his 
report to Congress, in 1866, according to which there were 
eighty thousand children under instruction by teachers con- 



3. See Appendix for Court Decisions. 

[210] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

nected with this bureau. General Howard was authorized to 
co-operate with such benevolent societies, etc., as were mak- 
ing any organized effort to establish institutions for the edu- 
cation of the colored youth ; and in this way he was enabled 
to assist, more or less, in the establishment of about all of the 
older institutions devoted to this purpose throughout the 
South. No such aid co.uld be given, however, except there 
was a duly and properly organized body authorized to receive 
it, and which could show some progress in the work as well as 
some future prospects. The American Missionary Association, 
which at the time was Congregational in the broadest sense, 
consisting of prominent men and women of all denominations, 
was enabled, through the assistance of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau, to perfect the establishment of many of its schools in 
the South. The amount of work which the American Mis- 
sionary Association has done in the direction of affording fa- 
cilities for the higher education of the Negroes can not be 
over-estimated. Its influence has been and is still being felt in 
nearly every institution of the kind in the country. Much of 
the money disbursed under the auspices of the Freedmen's 
Bureau belonged, more or less, directly to the Negroes them- 
selves, having been back pay and bounty money credited to 
colored soldiers and sailors. 

After 1863, when drafting men for the army became neces- 
sary, several of the states raised funds and placed them at the 
disposal of the government for the purpose of hiring Negroes 
in Virginia and the Carolinas as soldiers to be credited to the 
quota of the states raising the money ; and it is well known 
that some two hundred thousand Negroes enlisted between 
1863 and 1865. Their anxiety to enlist, looking upon the act 
as an opportunity to strike a blow for their liberty rather than 
to make money, coupled with their ignorance of geographical 
locations, caused the identity of many of them to be lost. 
This was especially the case with those who fell in battle, as 
so many did. The bounty money and wages due to those who 
perished while in the service were turned over to the Freed- 
men's Bureau primarily to await lawful claimants. Some- 
thing was added to this fund also by General Butler, who, 

[211] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

having observed that his colored troops generally seemed to 
have had little or no appreciation for money, withheld a por- 
tion of their pay for the benefit of their wives and children. 
All of this money that was not duly claimed very properly 
found its way into the Freedmen's Bureau. Much of this 
money collected by or turned over to the Bureau was demand- 
ed and paid out ; much of it never was demanded and never 
will be paid out to any individual claimant. 4 

The bill passed for the continuance of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau for one year from July, 1868, contained a clause express- 
ly providing that all money not otherwise expended by the 
Bureau, left on hand from funds held by the same should be 
used for the education of the freedmen and refugees. This 
bill also gave the Bureau authority to turn over all its school 
buildings and educational paraphernalia for the education of 
freedmen to such trustees, corporations, etc, as should be pre- 
pared to assume and carry on the work. The old Bureau was 
now preparing for its dissolution and soon after this time it 
began to relinquish its interests in the freedmen affairs and 
to turn them over to the War Department, while holding and 
in the meantime extending its supervision over matters of 
education. About two years later a bill was passed (March 
30, 1870) formally abolishing all except the educational func- 
tions of this institution, and turning over all else, including 
the collection and payment of bounties, etc., to colored 
soldiers and sailors, to the War Department. Two years later, 
in 1872, the remainder of this famous institution was absorbed 
by the Interior Department when it became known as the Bu- 
reau of Education and continued to encourage and foster our 
general free school system, the foundations of which had now 
been pretty securely laid in the South by the reconstruction- 
ists. In the meantime, Congress had been giving considerable 



4. While the author was employed in the office of the Treasurer of Howard 
University, Washington, D. C, in 1896, he was approached by an aged colored 
man, who came to inquire as to the location of the Freedmen's Bureau. He 
said that during the time he was employed as a cart driver under the aus- 
pices of the Bureau, one-half his wages was retained to be applied to the 
educational fund for the benefit of the freedmen; that he had heard that they 
were now paying the money back, and so he had come in from some distance 
in the country to get his share. There seemed to be little doubt about the 
innocent sincerity of this old man; part of his wages had, doubtless, been held 
up, but it most likely had been done by some unscrupulous clerk or combina- 
tion of clerks to cheat him. 



[212] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

attention to the free school scheme. Mr. James M. Ashley- 
made an endeavor to have a national free school system estab- 
lished by means of a constitutional amendment (December 
10, 1867) ; and a short while later, January 22, 1868, Mr. 
George W. Julian introduced a resolution directing the House 
Committee on Education and Labor to report a bill for the 
establishment of a free" school system for the education of all 
the children of the state without regard to race or color. But 
inasmuch as the states seemed more or less willing to assume 
the work begun by the Freedmen's Bureau and to carry on 
the same as a state obligation, neither the Ashley nor the 
Julian proposition was enacted into law. Mr. Hoar, then a 
Representative, but later a Senator from Massachusetts, act- 
ually reported a bill proposing national aid to education, but 
the states cried "hands off" and the measure failed. The same 
disposition was shown towards the Blair bill of 1889-90. 
There was an essential difference, however, between the 
Hoar measure and the bill urged before the Fiftieth Congress 
by Senator Blair. The trouble in 1870, which Mr. Hoar's 
measure was intended to remedy was the apparent reluctance 
on the part of some of the states to suppport the free schools, 
and the measure aimed to give the Federal Government con- 
trol to the extent of compelling the states to afford proper 
facilities, provided they were able to do so, and upon proof of 
their inability, then the government was to step in with its 
support. Mr. Blair's bill presumed inability on the part of 
the states in the first place and undertook to offer government 
aid generally. By the year 1890 the southern states generally 
had ceased to pretend to afford adequate educational facilities 
to their colored children; they had apparently ceased to 
try or even to desire such a thing. The Republican party 
pledged itself to the passage of the Blair bill or some other 
legislation of the same or similar purport, and the Blair bill 
did pass the House by a large majority and its author labored 
earnestly to get it through the Senate, where the Republi- 
cans also had a large majority, but the measure failed. 

While the Hoar measure was before Congress in 1870, the 
school situation as it was at the time, was pretty thoroughly 

[213] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

discussed. Mr. Sumner made a strenuous effort to have the 
color line abolished in the District of Columbia, but failed. 
The thinly veiled threats on the part of Congress as revealed 
in these discussions, to take the whole matter of the common 
schools in hand notwithstanding the desire of some to defer 
to State Rights, caused a much more liberal policy to be pur- 
sued by those having the oversight of the colored schools 
throughout the country. And so influenced, perhaps, at once 
by a sense of duty and the fear that further manifestations 
of stubbornness would likely bring harder conditions to which 
the national government would require them to conform, the 
southern states began to take hold of its free school problem 
with more earnestness. But they did not keep up these efforts 
insofar as the colored schools were concerned. From a more 
or less equitable administration of the systems under which 
all the children of the state were treated alike in theory at 
least, they have gone back step by step from the advocacy of 
the doctrine that colored children need a different sort of edu- 
cation from that of other children until the stage has been 
reached where many boldly claim that they should have 
no education, or at best, nothing more than the mere rudiments. 
But this position is consistent and is the only logical ground 
upon which those can stand who believe that all Negroes are 
and of right ought to be, hewers of wood and drawers of water. 
If there are any who ought to be held to drudgery by social 
custom, if not by civil law, they should be so conditioned as 
to enable others the more easily to exploit their labor. De- 
grade an ignorant man sufficiently and he will become con- 
tented; make him ignorant and the degradation will take 
care of itself; therefore those who wish to exploit the labor 
of others, strive to keep the latter ignorant. The separate 
school for colored children has lent itself beautifully to this 
scheme ; so in the South we see, in more or less thickly in- 
habited parts, schools for whites running nine months while 
those for others are open for four or perhaps five months ; in 
less densely populated districts we see some sort of school 
for whites but none for others. 

The public schools even among the whites of the South in 

[214] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the beginning had to struggle against the "old field" school, 
and the aristocratic sentiment in favor of the "select private 
school," which institutions were almost as characteristic of 
the South as was slavery ; for wide, indeed, was the gulf 
that divided the wealthy from the poor whites in the South 
in the days gone by, and the children of the two classes 
could have no intercourse with each other whatever in school 
or elsewhere. 

And so the cord, hard and tense with years of oppression, 
that was cut in 1863, let the pendulum of history swing at 
once through a mighty arc only to be brought back by the 
gravitation of conservatism far in the direction from which 
it started. The privilege of citizenship and other priv- 
ileges bestowed upon the colored people in the late slave 
states which were at first attacked by the mob, then con- 
tested in politics, finally have been largely taken away by 
the law. The highest courts in the land have declared that 
the nation that had power to bestow these privileges is 
powerless to protect the intended beneficiaries of the priv- 
ileges in the enjoyment of them over the objections of the 
individual states. Presidents and other high national of- 
ficials, who once prated about the "equality of all before 
the law," now declare that "it is not time for our colored 
citizens to expect to enjoy the full privileges of their citizen- 
ship." How much further the pendulum may swing in this 
backward direction remains to be seen. But the day is past 
when any party will accept the race question as an issue in 
politics. Things like the Brownsville affair 5 may loom up 
large and seem of great significance ; the welkin at times 
may yet ring with dim echoes of the past, but the race 
question in the United States as it once was, will never 
again be THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS. 



5. The matter of discharge of certain soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Regiment 
(colored), without honor, by President Roosevelt, was the subject of a long 
Congressional investigation, but the order was never revoked. 



[215] 



APPENDIX 



APPENDIX A 



, AMNESTY PROCLAMATION, DECEMBER 8, 1863 

Whereas, in and by the Constitution it is provided that the Presi- 
dent "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses 
against the United States except in case of impeachment;" and 

Whereas, there is a rebellion now in existence whereby the loyal 
governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, 
and many persons have committed and are now guilty of treason 
against the United States, and 

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have 
been enacted by Congress declaring forfeitures and confiscation of 
the property and liberation of the slaves, all upon terms and condi- 
tions therein stated; and also declaring that the President shall 
be authorized at any time thereafter by proclamation, to extend to 
persons who have participated in the existing rebellion in any state 
or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at 
such times and on such conditions as he may deem wise and expedi- 
ent for the public welfare, and 

Whereas, the congressional declaration for limited and condition- 
al pardons accords with well established judicial expositions of the 
pardoning power; and 

Whereas, with reference to such rebellion the President of the 
United States has issued several proclamations with provisions in 
regard to the liberation of the slaves ; and 

Whereas, it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in 
said rebellion to assume their allegiance to the United States and to 
re-inaugurate loyal state governments within and for their re- 
spective states : 

Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do 
proclaim, declare and make known to all persons who have directly 
or indirectly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, 
except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted 
to them and each of them with restoration to all rights and property 
except as to slaves and in proper cases where the rights of third 
parties shall have intervened, and upon condition that every such 
person shall take and subscribe to an oath thence forward to keep 
and maintain such oath inviolate, and which oath shall be registered 
for permanent preservation and shall be of the tenor and effect fol- 
lowing to wit : I, , do solemnly swear in the presence of 

Almighty God, that I will henceforth support, protect and defend 
the Constitution of the United States and of the Union of the states 
thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully 
support all the, acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion 
with reference to the slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, 
modified or held void by the Supreme Court; and that I will in like 
manner abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the 

[219] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

President made during the existing rebellion having reference to the 
slaves, so long and so far as not modified or declared void by de- 
cisions of the Supreme Court, so help me God. 

The persons excepted from the provisions of the foregoing are all 
who are or who shall have been civil or diplomatic officers or agents 
of the so-called Confederate Government; all who are or who shall 
have been military or naval officers of the so-called Confederate 
Government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in 
the navy; all who have left judicial stations under the United States 
to aid in the rebellion, and all who have engaged in any way in treat- 
ing colored persons or white persons in charge of such otherwise 
than as lawful prisoners of war and which persons may have been 
found in the United States service as soldiers, seamen or in any 
other capacity. 

I do further proclaim, declare and make known that whenever in 
any of the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, a num- 
ber of persons not less than one-tenth of the number of votes cast 
in such states in the Presidential election in the year A. D. 1860, 
each being a qualified voter by the election laws of the states exist- 
ing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and excluding 
all others, shall re-establish a state government which shall be re- 
publican in form and in no ways contravening said oath, such shall 
be recognized as the true government of the state and the state 
shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision 
which declares that the "United States shall guarantee to every 
state in the Union a republican form of government and shall pro- 
tect each of them against invasion and on the application of the 
legislature or executive (when the legislature can not be convened) 
against domestic violence." 

I do further proclaim, declare and make known that any provision 
which may be adopted by such government in relation to the freed 
people of such state which shall recognize and declare their perma- 
nent freedom, provide for their education which may yet be con- 
sistent as a temporary arrangement, with their present condition 
as a laboring, landless, homeless class, will not be objected to by 
the national Executive. 

It is suggested as not improper that in the construction of a loyal 
state government in any state, the name of the state, sub-division, 
the constitution and general code of laws as they were before the 
rebellion, be maintained, subject only to the modifications made 
necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if 
any, not contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed ex- 
pedient by those framing the new state government. 

To avoid misunderstanding it may be proper to say that this proc- 
lamation, so far as it relates to state governments, has no reference 
to states wherein loyal state governments have all the while been 
maintained. It may be proper to further say that whether members 
sent to Congress from any state shall be admitted to seats consti- 
tutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses and not to 
any extent with the Executive. And still further, that this proclama- 
tion is intended to present to the people of the states wherein the 
national authority has been subverted, a mode in and by which the 
national authority and loyal state governments may be re-established 
within said states or in any of them, and while the mode presented 

[220] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

is the best the Executive can suggest with present impressions, it 
must not be understood that no other possible mode would be 
acceptable. 
Given under my hand, etc., at Washington, December 8, 1863. 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President, etc. 
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary, etc. 



PROCLAMATION 

Whereas, at the late session, Congress passed a bill guaranteeing 
to certain states whose governments have been usurped or over- 
thrown, a republican form of government, a copy of which is hereto 
annexed ; and 

Whereas, the said bill was presented to the President of the 
United States for his approval less than one hour before the sine die 
adjournment of said session, and was not signed by him; and 

Whereas, the said bill contains among other things, a plan for 
restoring the states in rebellion to their proper political relations 
to the Union, which plan expressed the sense of Congress upon the 
subject, and which it is now thought fit to lay before the people for 
their consideration ; 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United 
States, do proclaim, declare and make known that I am, as I was in 
December last, when by proclamation I propounded a plan for res- 
toration, unprepared by formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly 
committed to any single plan of restoration, and while I am also un- 
prepared to say that the free-state constitutions and governments 
already adopted and installed in Arkansas and Louisiana shall be 
set aside and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging 
loyal citizens who have set up the same as to further effort, or to 
declare a constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery 
in the states, but am at the same time sincerely hoping and expect- 
ing that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout 
the nation may be adopted ; 

Nevertheless, I am fully satisfied with the system of restoration 
contained in the bill, and as one very proper for the loyal people of 
any state choosing to adopt it; and that I am, and at all times shall 
be, preparad to give executive aid and assistance to any such people, 
so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall have 
been suspended in any such state, and the people thereof shall have 
sufficiently resumed their obedience to the Constitution and laws 
of the United States, in which case military governors will be ap- 
pointed, with discretion to proceed according to the bill. 

In- testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington on the 8th day of July, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, and of the 
year of Independence of the United States, the eighty-ninth. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 



PROTEST OF SENATOR WADE ET AL. 
To the Supporters of the Government: 

We have read with surprise, but not without indignation, the proc- 
lamation of the President of the 8th of July, 1864. 

[221] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

The supporters of the Administration are responsible to the coun- 
try for its conduct; and it is their right and duty to check the en- 
croachments of the Executive on the authority of Congress, and re- 
quire it to confine itself to its proper sphere. 

It is impossible to pass in silence this proclamation without neglect 
of that duty; and having taken as much responsibility as any others 
in supporting the Administration, we are not disposed to fail in the 
other duty of asserting the rights of Congress. 

The President did not sign the bill "to guarantee to certain states 
whose governments have been usurped, a republican form of govern- 
ment," passed by the supporters of the Administration in both 
Houses of Congress after mature deliberation. 

The bill did not, therefore, become law; and it is, therefore, noth- 
ing- 

The proclamation is neither an approval nor a veto of the bill; it 
is, therefore, a document unknown to the laws and the Constitution 
of the United States. 

So far as it contains an apology for not signing the bill, it is a 
political manifesto against the friends of the government. 

So far as it proposing to execute the bill, it is not law; it is a grave 
Executive usurpation. 

It is fitting that the fact necessary to enable the friends of the Ad- 
ministration to appreciate the apology and the usurpation, be spread 
before them. 

The proclamation says : 

"And, whereas, the said bill was presented to the President of the 
United States for his approval less than one hour before the sine 
die adjournment of said session, and was not signed by him." 

If that be accurate, still this bill was presented with other bills 
that were signed. 

Within that hour, the time for the sine die adjournment had been 
postponed three times by the votes of both Houses; and the least 
intimation of a desire for more time by the President to consider 
this bill would have secured a further postponement. 

Yet the committee sent to ascertain whether the President had 
any further communication for the House of Representatives, re- 
ported that he had none; and the friends of the bill, who had 
anxiously waited on him to ascertain its fate, had already been in- 
formed that the President had resolved not to sign it. 

The time of presentation, therefore, had nothing to do with his 
failure to approve it. 

The bill had been discussed and considered for more than a month 
in the House of Representatives, which it passed on the 4th of May. 
It was reported to the Senate on the 27th of May, without material 
amendment, and passed the Senate absolutely as it came from the 
House on the 2nd of July. 

Ignorance of its contents is out of the question. Indeed, at his re- 
quest, a draft of the bill substantially the same in material points 
and identical in the points objected to by the proclamation, had been 
laid before him for his consideration in the winter of 1862-3. 

There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the provisions of the 
bill took the President by surprise. On the contrary, we have reason 
to believe them to have been well known and this method of pre- 
venting the bill from becoming a law without the constitutional re- 
sponsibility of a veto had been resolved on long before the bill 

[222] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

passed the Senate. We are informed by gentlemen entitled to entire 
confidence that before the 22nd of June, in New Orleans, it was 
stated by a member of General Banks' Staff, in the presence of other 
gentlemen in official position, that Senator Doolittle had written a 
letter to the department that the House Reconstruction Bill would 
be staved off in the Senate to a period too late in the session to re- 
quire the President to veto it in order to defeat it; and that Mr. 
Lincoln would retain the bill, if necessary, and thereby defeat it. 

The experience of Senator Wade in his various efforts to get the 
bill considered in the Senate was quite in accordance with this plan, 
and the fate of the bill was accurately predicted by letters received 
from New Orleans before it had passed the Senate. 

Had the proclamation stopped there it would have been only one 
other defeat of the will of the people by the Executive perversion 
of the Constitution. But it goes further. The President says : "And, 
whereas, the said bill contains among other things, a plan for re- 
storing the states in rebellion to their proper political relation in 
the Union, which plan expressed the sense of Congress on that sub- 
ject, and which plan it is now thought fit to lay before the people 
for their consideration." 

By what authority of the Constitution? In what form? The re- 
sult to be declared by whom? With what effect when ascertained? 
Is it to be a law by the approval of the people, without the approval 
of Congress, at the will of the President? Will the President on his 
opinion of the popular approval execute it as a law? Or is this 
merely a device to avoid the serious responsibility of defeating a 
law on which so many loyal hearts reposed for security? 

But the reasons now assigned for not approving the bill are full 
of ominous significance. The President proceeds: "Now, therefore, 
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, de- 
clare and make known that while I am (as I was in December last, 
when by proclamation I proposed a plan for restoration) unprepared 
by a formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly committed to any 
single plan of restoration." 

That is to say, the President is resolved that the people shall not 
by law take any security from the rebel states against a renewal of 
the rebellion, before restoring their power to govern us. His wis- 
dom and prudence are to be our sufficient guarantee! He further 
says: "And while I am also unprepared to declare that the free-state 
constitutions adopted and installed in Louisiana and Arkansas shall 
be set aside and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging 
the loyal citizens who have set them up as to further effort." 

That is to say, the President persists in recognizing those shadows 
of governments in Arkansas and Louisiana which Congress formally 
declared should not be recognized— whose Representatives and Sena- 
tors were recalled by formal vote of both Houses of Congress — 
which it was declared formally should have no electoral vote for 
President and Vice-President. 

They are mere creatures of his will. They are mere oligarchies 
imposed on the people by military orders under the form of an elec- 
tion, at which generals, provost marshals, soldiers and camp follow- 
ers were the chief actors, assisted by a handful of resident citizens, 
and urged on to premature action by private letters from the Presi- 

In neither Louisiana nor Arkansas before General Banks' defeat 

[223] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

did the United States control half the territory or half the popula- 
tion. In Louisiana General Banks' proclamation frankly declared 
"The fundamental law of the state is martial law." 

On that foundation of freedom he erected what the President calls 
"the free constitution and government of Louisiana." But of this 
state, whose fundamental law was martial law, only sixteen par- 
ishes out of forty-eight parishes were held by the United States; 
and in five of the sixteen we held only our war camps. The eleven 
parishes we substantially held had 233,185 inhabitants; the residue 
of the state not held by us, 575,617. 

At the farce called an election, the officers of General Banks re- 
turned that 11,346 ballots were cast; but whether by any lawful au- 
thority or by whom, the people of the United States have no legal 
assurance, but it is probable that 4000 were cast by soldiers or em- 
ployes of the United States, military or municipal, but none accord- 
ing to law, state or national , and 7000 represented the State of 
Louisiana. Such is the free constitution and government of Louisiana, 
and it is like that of Arkansas. Nothing but the failure of a military 
expedition deprived us of a like one in the swamps of Florida; and 
before the Presidential election, like ones may be organized in every 
rebel state where the United States has a camp. 

The President by preventing this bill from becoming a law, holds 
the electoral votes of the rebel states at the dictation of his personal 
ambition. If those votes turn the balance in his favor, is it to be 
supposed that his competitor, defeated by such means, will acqui- 
esce? If the rebel majority assert their supremacy in those states and 
send votes which elect an enemy of the government will we not 
repel his claims? And is not that civil war for the presidency inau- 
gurated by the votes of rebel states? 

Seriously impressed with these dangers Congress, the proper con- 
stitutional authority, formally declared that there are no state gov- 
ernments in the rebel states, and provided for their erection at a 
proper time, and both the Senate and the House of Representatives 
rejected the Senators and Representatives chosen under the author- 
ity of what the President calls the free constitution and government 
of Arkansas. The President's proclamation "holds for naught" this 
judgment and discards the authority of the Supreme Court and 
strides headlong towards the anarchy his proclamation of December 
8 inaugurated. 

If electors for President be allowed to be chosen in either of these 
states a sinister light will be cast on the motives which induced the 
President to "hold for naught" the will of Congress rather than his 
government in Louisiana and Arkansas. That judgment of Congress 
which the President defies was the exercise of an authority exclu- 
sively vested in Congress by the Constitution, to determine what is 
the established government in a state, and in its own nature and by 
the highest judicial authority binding on all other departments of 
the government. The Supreme Court has formally declared that 
under the Fourth Article of the Constitution, requiring the 
United States to guarantee to every state a republican form of gov- 
ernment, "it rests with Congress to decide what is the established 
one in any state," and "when the Senators and Representatives of a 
state are admitted into the councils of the Union the authority of 
the government under which they are appointed, as well as its re- 
publican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional author- 

[224] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

ity and its decision is binding on every other department of the gov- 
ernment and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is 
true that the contest in this case did not last long enough to bring 
the matter to this issue; and as no Senators and Representatives 
were elected under the authority of the governments of which Mr. 
Dorr was the head, Congress was not called upon to decide the con- 
troversy. Yet the right to decide it is placed there." 

Even the President's proclamation of the 8th of December, for- 
mally declares that "whether members sent to Congress from any 
state shall be admitted to seats constitutionally rests exclusively 
with the respective Houses, and not to any extent with the Execu- 
tive." And that is none the less true because wholly inconsistent 
with the President's assumption in the proclamation of the right to 
institute and recognize state governments in the rebel states, not be- 
cause that the President is unable to perceive that his recognition is 
a nullity if it be not conclusive on Congress. Under the Constitution, 
the right to Senators and Representatives is inseparable from a state 
government. If there be a state government, the right is absolute. 
If there be no state government there can be no Senators or Repre- 
sentatives chosen. The two Houses of Congress are expressly de- 
clared to be the sole judges of its own members. When, therefore, 
Senators and Representatives are admitted, the state government 
under whose authority they are chosen is conclusively established; 
when they are rejected its existence is as conclusively denied; and 
to this judgment the President is bound to submit. 

The President proceeds to express his unwillingness "to declare a 
constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery in the 
states" as another reason for not signing the bill. But the bill no- 
where proposes to abolish slavery in the states. The bill did provide 
that all slaves in the rebel states should be manumitted. But as the 
President had already signed three bills manumitting several classes 
of slaves in the rebel states, it is not conceived possible that he en- 
tertained any scruples touching that provision of the bill respecting 
which he is silent. He had already himself assumed the right by proc- 
lamation to free much the larger number of slaves in the rebel 
states under authority given him by Congress to use the military 
power to suppress the rebellion ; and it is quite unconceivable that 
the President should think Congress could vest in him a discretion 
it could not itself exercise. It is the more unintelligible from the 
fact that, except in respect to a small part of Virginia and Louisiana, 
the bill covered only what the proclamation covered — added a con- 
gressional title and judicial remedies by law to the disputed title 
under the proclamation— to perfect the work the President professed 
to be so anxious to accomplish. 

Slavery as an institution can be abolished by a change of the Con- 
stitution of the United States or of the law of the states; and this 
is the principle of the bill. It required the new constitutions of the 
states to provide for that prohibition; and the President, in the face 
of his own proclamation, does not venture to object to insisting on 
that condition; nor will the country tolerate its abandonment, yet 
he defeated the only provision imposing it. But when he describes 
himself, in spite of this great blow at emancipation, as "sincerely 
hoping and expecting that a constitutional amendment abolishing 
slavery throughout the nation may be adopted," we curiously inquire 
on what his expectation rests, after the vote of the House of Rep- 

[225] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

resentatives at the recent session, and in the face of the political 
complexion of more than enough of the states to prevent the possi- 
bility of its adoption within any reasonable time; and why he did 
not indulge his sincere hopes with so large an installment of the 
blessing as his approval of the bill that would have secured it? 

After this assignment of his reason for preventing the bill from 
becoming a law, the President proceeds to declare his purpose to 
execute it as a law by his plenary dictatorial power. He says : 
"Nevertheless, I am fully satisfied with the system for restora- 
tion contained in the bill as one very proper for the loyal 
people of any state choosing to adopt it ; and that I am, and at all 
times shall be, prepared to give Executive aid and assistance to any 
such people, as soon as military resistance to the United States shall 
have been suppressed in any such state, and the people thereof shall 
have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the Constitution and 
laws of the United States — in which case military governors will be 
appointed, with directions to proceed according to the bill." 

A more studied outrage on the legislative authority of the people 
has never been perpetrated. Congress passed a bill; the President 
refused to approve it, and then by proclamation puts as much of it 
in force as he sees fit, and proposes to execute those parts by officers 
unknown to the laws of the United States, and not subject to the 
-confirmation of the Senate. The bill directed the appointment of 
provisional governors by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The President, after defeating the law, proposes to appoint, 
without authority of law and without the advice and consent of the 
Senate, military governors for the rebel states! He has already 
exercised his dictatorial usurpation in Louisiana, and defeated the 
bill to prevent its limitation. 

Henceforth we must regard the following precedent as the presi- 
dential law of the rebel states: 

Executive Mansion, Washington, March 15, 1864. 
His Excellency, Michael Hahn, Governor of Louisiana: 

Until further orders you are hereby invested with the powers 
exercised hitherto by the military governor of Louisiana. 

Yours, 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

This Michael Hahn is no officer of the United States; the Presi- 
dent, without law, without the advice or consent of the Senate, by 
a private note not even countersigned by the Secretary of State, 
makes him dictator of Louisiana! 

The bill provided for the civil administration of the laws of the 
state, but it should be in a fit temper to govern itself, repealing all 
laws recognizing slavery, and making all men equal before the law. 
These beneficent provisions the President has annulled. People will 
die and marry and transfer property, and buy and sell; and to these 
acts of civil life courts and officers of the law are necessary. Con- 
gress legislated for these necessary things and the President de- 
prives them of the protection of the law! Whatever is done will be 
at his will and pleasure by persons responsible to no law, and more 
interested to secure the interests and execute the will of the Presi- 
dent than of the people; and the will of Congress is to be "held for 
naught" unless the loyal people of rebel states should prefer the 
stringent bill to the easy proclamation, still the registration will be 

[226] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

made under no legal sanction ; it will give no assurance that a ma- 
jority of the people of the states have taken the oath; if adminis- 
tered, it will be without legal authority and void, and no indictment 
will lie for false swearing at the election, or for admitting bad or 
rejecting good votes; it will be the farce of Louisiana and Arkansas 
acted over again, under the forms of this bill but without authority 
of law. But when we come to the guarantees of the future peace 
which Congress meant to enact, the form as well as the substance of 
the bill must yield to the President's will that none should be im- 
posed. 

It was the solemn resolve of Congress to protect the loyal men of 
the nation against three great dangers: (1) the return to power of 
the guilty leaders of the rebellion; (2) the continuance of slavery; 
and (3) the burden of the rebel debt. Congress required assent to 
these provisions by the convention of the state ; and if it refused, it 
was to be dissolved. The President "holds for naught" that resolve 
of Congress because he is "unwilling to be inflexibly committed to 
any one plan of restoration," and the people of the United States 
are not to be allowed to protect themselves unless their enemies 
agree to it- 

The order to proceed according to the bill is therefore merely at 
the will of the rebel states; and they have the option to reject it, 
accept the proclamation of the 8th of December last, and demand 
the President's recognition! Mark the contrast 1 The bill required a 
majority, the proclamation is satisfied with one-tenth; the bill re- 
quired one oath, the proclamation requires another; the bill ascer- 
tains voters by registering, the proclamation by guess ; the bill 
exacts adherence to existing territorial limits, the proclamation ad- 
mits of others ; the bill governs the rebel states by law, the procla- 
mation commits them to the lawless discretion of military governors 
and provost marshals; the bill forbids electors for President, the 
proclamation and defeat of the bill threaten us with civil war for 
the admission or the exclusion of such votes; the bill exacts the ex- 
clusion of dangerous enemies from power and the relief of the 
nation from the rebel debt, and the prohibition of slavery forever, so 
that the supression of the rebellion will double our resources to bear 
or pay the national debt, free the masses from the old domination 
of rebel leaders, and eradicate the cause of the war; the proclama- 
tion secures neither of these guarantees. It is silent respecting the 
rebel debt and the exclusion of rebel leaders ; leaving slavery exactly 
where it was by law at the outbreak of the rebellion, and adds no 
guarantee even of the freedom of the slaves he undertook to manu- 
mit. 

It is summed up in an illegal oath, without sanction and therefore 
void. The oath is to support all proclamations of the President dur- 
ing the rebellion having reference to the slaves. Any government is 
to be accepted at the hands of one-tenth of the people not contra- 
vening that oath. Now that oath neither secures the abolition of 
slavery nor adds any security to the freedom of the slaves the Presi- 
dent has declared free. It does not secure the abolition of slavery; 
for the proclamation of freedom merely professes to free certain 
slaves while it recognizes the institution. Every constitution of the 
rebel states at the outbreak of the rebellion may be adopted without 
the change of a letter, for none of them contravenes the proclama- 
tion ; none of them established slavery. 

[227] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

It adds no security to the freedom of the slaves; for their title is 
the proclamation of freedom. If it be unconstitutional, an oath to 
support it is void. Whether constitutional or not, the oath is with- 
out authority of law and therefore void. If it be void and observed 
it exacts no enactment by the state either in law or constitution, to 
add a state guarantee to the proclamation title; and the right of the 
slaves to freedom is an open question before the state courts on the 
relative authority of the state law and the proclamation. If the oath 
binds the one-tenth who take it, it is not exacted of the other nine- 
tenths who succeed to the control of the government; so that it is 
annulled instantly by the act of recognition. 

What the state courts would say of the proclamation who can 
doubt? But the master would not go to court — he would simply seize 
his slaves. 

What the Supreme Court would say, who can tell? When and how 
is the question to get there? No habeas corpus lies for him in the 
United States Court; and the President defeats this bill for the ex- 
tension of the writ to his case. 

Such are fruits of this rash and fatal act of the President — a blow 
at the friends of his Administration, at the rights of humanity, and 
at the principles of republican government. 

The President has greatly presumed on the forbearance which the 
supporters of his Administration have so long practiced, in view of 
the arduous conflict in which we are engaged, and the reckless feroc- 
ity of our political opponents. But he must understand that our sup- 
port is of a cause and not of a man ; that the authority of Congress 
is paramount and must be respected; that the whole body of the 
Union men in Congress will not submit to be impeached by him of 
rash and unconstitutional legislation ; and if he wishes our support 
he must confine himself to his Executive duties — to obey and exe- 
cute, not make the laws — to suppress by arms armed rebellion, and 
leave political recognition to Congress. 

If the supporters of the government fail to insist on this they be- 
come responsible for the usurpations which they fail to rebuke, and 
are justly liable to the indignation of the people whose rights and 
security, committed to their keeping, they sacrifice. 

Let them consider the remedy of these usurpations, and, having 
found it, fearlessly execute it. 

B. F. WADE, 

Chairman, Senate Committee. 

H. WINTER DAVIS, 

Chairman, Committee of House 
of Representatives on the Re- 
bellious States. 



[22Sj 



APPENDIX B 



INTERESTING DECISIONS BY THE UNITED STATES 
SUPREME COURT— CIVIL RIGHTS AND OTHERS 

(The Language is from Syllabi of the Cases.) 

The clause in the Constitution of the United States relative to 
fugitives from labor, manifestly contemplated a positive and un- 
qualified right on the part of the owners of slaves, which no state 
law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or re- 
strain ; and any law which interrupts, limits, delays or obstructs the 
right of the owner to the immediate command of his service or labor, 
operates pro tanto to discharge the slave therefrom. The question 
can never be how much he is discharged from, but whether he is 
discharged from any at all by the natural and necessary operation 
of the state laws or state regulations. The question is not of quan- 
tity or degree, but of withholding or controlling the incidents of a 
positive right. 

The owner of a slave has the same right to take or seize him in a 
state to which he has fled that he had in the state from which he 
escaped. The owner of a slave has the right to seize and take him 
wherever found; wherever he can without a breach of the peace or 
illegal violence. 

The power of legislation in relation to fugitives from labor is ex- 
clusively in the national legislature (Sturgis vs. Crowinshield, 4 Wh. 
122). 

The right to seize a fugitive slave and the duty to deliver him up 
in whatever state he is found is, under the Constitution, recognized 
as a positive right and duty pervading the whole Union with equal 
and supreme force uncontrolled and uncontrollable by state sover- 
eignty or state legislation. 

The right and duty are co-extensive and uniform in remedy and 
operation throughout the whole Union. The owner has the same se- 
curity, the same remedial justice, and the same exemption from state 
regulation and control through however many states he may pass in 
transition to his domicile. The act of the Pennsylvania Legislature 
is unconstitutional and void. 

(1842) Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters p. 500, Opinion by 
Story, J. 

Note — Compare this argument and decision with later Supreme Court decisions 
as to the respective powers of the national and state legislatures — the Civil 
Rights cases for instance. The decision in the above case by Judge Story 
arose as follows: In 1826 the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an Act as 
follows: "That if any person shall by force or violence, take, carry away or 
cause to be taken or carried away, or shall by fraud or false pretense seduce 
or cause to be seduced any Negro or mulatto from any part or parts of this 
Commonwealth, with the design or intention of selling and disposing of or 
causing to be 9old and disposed of or keeping and detaining or causing to be 
kept and detained, any Negro, etc., as a slave for life or for any term what- 
ever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on 
conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a felony and shall forfeit and pay at 
the discretion ef the Court a sum not less than five hundred dollars nor more 
than one thousand dollars — one-half to be paid to the persons who shall 

[229] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

prosecute the same and the other half to the Commonwealth; moreover shall 
be sentenced to undergo a servitude for any term of years not less than seven 
nor more than twenty-one years: Provided that fugitive slaves shall be re- 
turned on petition to any judge or justice of the peace, in writing by the party 
claiming, setting up the fact of his ownership and the escape. The fugitive to 
be arrested and brought before the judge or justice of the peace. When the 
claim is presented by an agent or attorney, the same to be accompanied by 
an affidavit of the owner which affidavit is to be certified before some person 
authorized to administer oaths in the county where said owner resides. The 
judge or justice of the peace to certify the record to the Court of Quarter 
Sessions within ten days, when the case will be duly tried. Provided, that no 
one claimed as a slave shall be removed from the state except in accordance 
with this Act." The people of Pennsylvania had been greatly annoyed and 
often distressed by slave-holders who were in the habit of coming into the 
state in quest of their alleged slaves. They or hired thugs would at times 
seize any colored person they could lay their hands on, and without any one 
to question them, would take them and sell them to slave traders that in- 
fested the borders of Maryland. To stop this disgracefuj practice, the state 
passed this law for the purpose of compelling those claiming persons as their 
slaves to at least prove their claims before a competent court. But the Su- 
preme Court said that this law was unconstitutional. See Civil Rights Case in- 
fra XXIX. 



A free Negro whose ancestors were brought to this country and 
sold as a slave is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Consti- 
tution of the United States. When the Constitution was adopted 
they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the com- 
munity which constituted the state and were not numbered among 
"the people or citizens," consequently the special rights and im- 
munities guaranteed to citizens, do not apply to them. And not being 
citizens within the meaning of the Constitution, are not entitled to 
sue in that character in a court of the United States. Since the 
adoption of the Constitution, no state can make any person a citi- 
zen of the United States nor entitle them (him) to the rights and 
immunities secured to citizens. 

(1857) (Dred) Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard, 395. Opinion 
by Taney, C. J.; Curtis and McLean, JJ., dissenting. 

Note— This is the famous or infamous Dred Scott Decision. The facts of the 
case were as follows: Dr. Sanford moved to Missouri, taking with him among 
other things, Dred Scott, a slave. Under the compromise of 1820, slavery was 
excluded from a certain part of Missouri; on reaching this territory Scott pe- 
titioned for a writ of habeas corpus from the United States Court to deter- 
mine whether or not he might rightfully claim his freedom. The writ of habeas 
corpus is a common law writ and is available to all citizens under the pro- 
visions of the United States Constitution. The whole case, therefore, turned 
on the point as to whether or not Scott was a "citizen;" if he was, he had a 
right to sue out the writ and then the question might be raised as to the 
legality of his detention; if he was not a "citizen," then the legality of his 
detention need not be considered. The learned court argued that the term 
citizen implied the right of one to enjoy all the civil and political advantages 
of the country of which he may be a citizen. It was then asserted that Ne- 
groes were nowhere permitted to enjoy any advantages of citizenship as a 
matter of legal right, in fact, had no. rights of any kind that a white man was 
bound to respect. 

The dissenting justices showed that in parts of the country Negroes had 
been in the exercise and enjoyment of the highest privileges of citizenship 
since the time of the Revolution. This decision, however, raised a great ques- 
tion and one whose final determination by the adoption of the Fourteenth 
Amendment in which citizenship is defined, has been of greatest benefit to 
the country especially in view of our heterogenous population. 



The main purpose of the last three (Thirteenth, Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth) Amendments to the Constitution was the freedom of the 
African race, the security and perpetuation of that freedom, and 

[230] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

their protection from the oppression of the white man who had for- 
merly held them in slavery. In giving construction to these articles 
it is necessary to keep this main purpose steadily in view. The pur- 
pose of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily 
intended to confer citizenship upon the Negro race; secondly to give 
definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the 
states, and recognizes and distinguishes between citizenship of the 
United States and citizenship of the states. The latter embraces 
generally those fundamental civil rights for the security and estab- 
lishment of which organized society is instituted, and they remain, 
with certain exceptions mentioned in the Federal Constitution, under 
the care of state governments. The privileges and immunities of 
citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature 
and character of the national government, the provisions of the Con- 
stitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and it 
is these which are placed under the protection of Congress by this 
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause which forbids a 
state to deny any persons the equal protection of the laws was 
clearly intended to prevent the hostile discrimination against the 
Negroes so familiar in states where they had been held as slaves, and 
for this purpose, the clause confers ample power upon Congress to 
secure their rights and equality before the law. 

(1873) Opinion by Miller, J. The Slaughter House Cases, 
16 Wallace 36. 

Note— The learned court said at page 78, that "it was not the purpose of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to transfer to Congress the protection of the civil 
rights, etc., hitherto under the protection of the states. The privileges, etc., 
referred to in the amendment being such as belong to the states, they are 
under state control." 

The case has no immediate connection with the Negro question at all, hay- 
ing been brought to determine whether or not a state (Louisiana) might, in 
view of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, compel the citizens of 
a community (New Orleans) to patronize the establishment of a slaughter 
house company that had been given a monopoly of the business of slaughter- 
ing animals for the market. The plaintiff undertook to show that such a 
regulation was unconstitutional, being in violation of the amendments named. 
The court held that it was not, and that the state might properly enforce the 
law. 

Bradley, C. J., Swayne and Fields, JJ., dissented. 



Words of the charter of a railroad company granted by Act of 
Congress, to the effect that no person shall be excluded from cars on 
account of race, color, etc. Held: That this meant that persons of 
color should travel in the same cars that white persons used, and 
along with them in such cars; and that the Act was not satisfied by 
the company providing cars assigned exclusively to colored people 
though as good as those assigned exclusively to white people, and 
should be the very cars that were at times assigned exclusively to 
white people. 

(1873) R. R. Co. vs. Brown, 17 Wallace 445. Opinion by 
Davis, J. 



The adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment rendered inoperative 

4 [231] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

a provision in the existing constitution of a state whereby the right 
of suffrage was limited to the white race. The presumption should 
be indulged in the first instance that a state recognizes as binding 
on all her citizens and in every department of her government, an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States from the time 
of its adoption, and her duty to enforce it within her limits without 
reference to any inconsistent provision in her own constitution or 
statutes. 

(1880) Neal vs. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370. 



Note — In connection with the Neal case, the Supreme Court incidentally con- 
strued the following section of the Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat, 
at Large, Pt. 3, p. 335: "No citizen possessing otherwise qualifications shall 
be disqualified from service as grand or petit jurors in any court of the United 
States or of any state on account of color, race," etc. 

Neal was a Negro charged with a felony in the State of Delaware, and pe- 
titioned for the removal of his case to the United States Circuit Court because 
Negroes were excluded from service as jurors in the state courts. The Su- 
preme Court denied the prayer on the ground that the state had passed no 
law denying to Negroes the right to serve as jurors. "But the exclusion of 
persons from service as jurors because of race, etc., if done without authority 
derived from the Constitution of the United States is a violation of the per- 
son's rights under the Constitution." 

The other statute involved in this case is as follows: "When in any civil 
suit or criminal prosecution commenced in any state court for any cause what- 
ever, against any person who is denied or can not enforce in the judicial 
tribunal of the state or in the part of the state where such prosecution is 
pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal civil 
rights of the citizens of the United States, such suit or prosecution may be, 
upon petition of such defendant filed in the said state court at any time be- 
fore the trial or final hearing of the cause, stating the facts and verified by 
oath, removed for trial to the next Circuit Court to be held in the district 
where it is pending." 

Neal based his case in the Supreme Court on those two statutes or laws 
passed by Congress, but the court declined to sustain the contention. 



The Fourteenth Amendment is one of a series of constitutional 
amendments having a common purpose of securing to a recently 
emancipated race which has been held in slavery through many 
generations, all of the civil rights that the superior race enjoy, and 
to give to it the protection of the general government in the enjoy- 
ment of such rights wherever they should be denied by the states. 
The amendment not only gave citizenship to persons of color, but 
denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal pro- 
tection of the laws and invested Congress with the power to enforce 
its provisions by appropriate legislation. The amendment confers 
the positive right of exemption from unfriendly legislation against 
them as colored; exemption from discriminations imposed by public 
authority which imply legal inferiority in civil society, lessen the 
security of their rights and are steps towards reducing them to the 
condition of a subject race. Any statute that denies to colored men 
the right to serve as jurors denies to them the equal protection of 
the laws (and is unconstitutional). The very idea of a jury is that 
of a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person 
whose rights it is selected to determine. And where the statutes of 
a state permit (juries of white men) to be chosen indiscriminately 
for trial of the accused of their race and at the same time permit or 

[232] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

require such discrimination against colored men, the latter are not 
equally protected by the laws with the former. 

(1879) Strauder vs. West Va., 100 U. S. 303. 



Though a mixed jury in a particular case is not essential to the 
equal protection of the laws, colored men are entitled to the right 
not to be excluded because of their color, etc. 
(1879) Va. vs. Rivers, 100 U. S. 315. 



The inhibition contained in the Fourteenth Amendment means 
that no agency of the state or of the officers or agents by whom her 
powers are exerted shall deny to any person within her jurisdiction 
the equal protection of the laws. Whoever by virtue of his public 
position under the state government deprives another of his life, 
liberty or property without due process of law, violates this inhibi- 
tion and, as he acts in the name of the state and for the state and 
is clothed with her power, his act is her act. Otherwise the inhibi- 
tion is meaningless. Congress is invested with power to enforce by 
appropriate legislation this provision, and such legislation must act 
not on an abstract thing denominated a state, but upon persons who 
are its agents in the denial of the rights intended to be secured. 
(1879) Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339. 



The government of states and of the United States are distinct, 
each having its own citizens who owe it allegiance and whose rights 
within its jurisdiction it must protect * * * * and rights of citi- 
zens of one may be different from those of the other. The Govern- 
ment of the United States can not grant or secure to its citizens 
rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication, placed 
under its jurisdiction. All that can not be so granted or secured are 
left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. Sovereignty for the 
protection of the life and personal liberty within the respective 
states rests alone with the states. The Fourteenth Amendment pro- 
hibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty or property 
without due process of law, and from denying to any person within 
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing 
to the rights of one citizen as against the other. It simply furnishes 
an additional guaranty against any encroachments by the state upon 
the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member 
of society. The duty of protecting all of its citizens in the enjoyment 
of equal rights was originally assumed by the states and still re- 
mains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is 
to see that the states do not deny the right. This the amendment 
guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is 
limited to the enforcement of this guaranty. The right to vote in 
the states comes from the states ; but the right of exemption from 
prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. 

(1875) U. S. vs. Cruikshank, et al. 92 U. S. 542 Opinion by 
Waite, C. J. 

Note — Cruikshank alleged that he had been hindered and prevented from 
▼oting by reason of an unlawful conspiracy and brought his action under the 
following statute, being Section 6 of the Act of May 31, 1870: 

"That if any two or more persons shall bind together, or go in disguise upon 

[233] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

the public highway, or upon the premises of another with intent to violate 
the provisions of this Act, or injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citi- 
zen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any 
right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of 
the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons 
shall be held to be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be 
fined or imprisoned or both at the discretion of the court, the fine not to ex- 
ceed $500, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall more- 
over be hereafter ineligible to and disabled from holding any office of trust, 
etc., under the United States." 

The court held that the national government could afford the plaintiff no 
relief under the circumstances above mentioned notwithstanding the statute 
quoted; that such matters rested with the states exclusively. 



The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the rights of suffrage,, 
but invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption 
from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on ac- 
count of race, color, etc., and empowers Congress to enforce the 
right by appropriate legislation. The power of Congress to legis- 
late in matters of voting in the states rests upon this amendment 
only and can be exercised by providing for punishment only when 
the wrongful refusal to receive the vote of a qualified voter is on 
account of race, color or pervious condition of servitude. The Third 
and Fourth Sections of the Act of May 31, 1870, are, therefore, un- 
constitutional, being beyond the limits of the Fifteenth Amendment. 

(1875) U. S. vs. Reese, 92 U. S. 214. Hunt, J., dissented. 

Note— Sections 3 and 4 of the Act referred to were in the following language: 
"That whenever by the authority of the constitution or laws of any state or 
territory, any act shall be required to be done by any citizen as a pre- 
requisite to qualify or enable him to vote, the offer of any such citizen to 
perform the act required as aforesaid shall, if he fail to carry it into execu- 
tion by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the officer or person charged 
with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance or offer to perform 
or acting thereon, be deemed and held to be performance in law of such act; 
and the person so offering and being otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to 
vote * * * * as though such act were performed. And any judge, inspect- 
or or other officer of election, whose duty it is or shall be, to receive, register, 
count, report and give effect to the vote of such citizen, who shall wrongfully 
refuse to count and certify the same, shall forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to 
the person aggrieved or be imprisoned not less than one month nor more than 
on year." 

Section 4: "That if any person by force, bribery, threats or intimidation or 
othef illegal means, shall hinder, delay, prevent or obstruct, or shall bind and 
confederate with others to hinder, delay, etc., any citizen from doing the act 
required to be done to qualify him to vote or from voting at any election, such 
person for every such offense, shall forfeit the sum of $500 to the person ag- 
grieved and shall also, upon conviction thereof be guilty of a misdemeanor 
and fined $500, or be imprisoned for not les6 than one month nor more than 
one year." 



Provision in a state code prohibiting white persons and Negroes 
living together in adultery or fornication is not in conflict with the 
Constitution of the United States, although it prescribes penalties 
more severe than those to which the parties would be subject if 
they were of the same race. 

Pace vs. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583. 



The Fourteenth Amendment is a prohibition upon states only, and 
legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is 

[234] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

not direct legislation on matters respecting which states are pro- 
hibited from making or enforcing certain laws or doing certain acts, 
but corrective legislation such as may be necessary for the proper 
counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. 

The First and Second Sections of the Civil Rights Act of March 
1, 1875, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several 
states, not being authorized either by the Thirteenth or Fourteenth 
Amendments. 

(1883) Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3. Opinion by Bradley, 
J.; Harlan dissented. 

Note — In the course of his argument and reasoning in arriving at this conclu- 
sion, the learned justice said: "Civil rights such as are guaranteed by the 
Constitution can not be impaired by an individual unsupported by state au- 
thority in its laws, customs or judicial or executive proceedings. The wrong- 
ful act of an individual unsupported by such authority is simply a private 
wrong or a crime of the individual; an invasion of his rights 'tis true, 
whether they effect his person, his property or his reputation; but if they are 
not sanctioned in some way by the state or done under its authority, his 
rights remain in full force and may presumably be vindicated by resort to the 
laws of the state for redress." 

Sections 1 and 2 of the Civil Rights Act are the well-known provisions in- 
tended to secure to Negroes the indiscriminate privileges of accommodations 
at hotels, theatres, etc., as well as in matters of travel on conveyances of 
common carriers. 



[235| 



APPENDIX C 



INTERESTING DECISIONS BY SOME OF THE STATE COURTS 

Although there be in a State's Bill of Rights provision making all 
of its citizens equal before the law, a law afterwards passed making 
it a penal offense for a Caucasian and a Negro to marry, is not un- 
constitutional (neither the state nor the United States Constitution 
being offended thereby). Each state has the right to declare how 
and whom its citizens shall marry. 

Francois vs. State, 9 Tex. App. 144. 

Ex parte Kinney, 3 Hughes (Va.) C. Ct. 9. 



Regulations requiring white and colored passengers to occupy 
separate cars or compartments of railroad car are not unconstitu- 
tional. 

Ex parte Plessy, 7 Am. R. & Corp. Repts. 383. 

Clinton vs. R. R. Co., 21 S. W. (Mo.) 457. 

Note — For a long line of these decisions by various courts see Lawyers Reports 
Annotated Vol. XVIII. Decisions often turn on the point of distinction between 
"equality" and "identity." Where the statutes require railroads, etc., to give 
all passengers "equal" accommodations, or even "identical" accommodations, 
courts have usually held that it does not mean that they should have the 
"same" accommodations, etc. 



COMMENT ON SCHOOL DECISIONS, ETC. 

The question of legality of maintaining separate public schools 
has been before the courts many times, and it has been uniformly 
held by the highest courts of several states that there is nothing in 
the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent the establishment of separate 
schools for the education of the colored race; and that it is purely 
a matter of state regulation. 

People vs. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438. 

State vs. McCann, 21 Ohio 129. 

Cory vs. Carter, 48 Indiana 327. 

Ward vs. Flood, 48 Cal. 36. 

United States vs. Buntin, 10 Fed. Reps. 730. 



Some states have passed laws specifically abolishing separate 
schools, as in Pennsylvania. But even here local regulations or 
customs in communities with a large colored population tend to 
encourage the maintenance of separate schools. 

The Kansas Constitution of 1876 provided in Sections 2 and 
9 of Article XI, in substance as follows : That in cities of a 

[236] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 

certain class there shall be established and maintained a system of 
schools free to all children residing in such cities within a specified 
age; and the Board of Education was given power to make their 
own rules and regulations, subject to the provisions of that article, 
to organize and maintain a system of graded schools, and to estab- 
lish a high school, etc. The Board of Education of one of the cities 
within the provisions of the act undertook to exclude Negro chil- 
dren from a certain school. Upon appeal to the courts it was held: 
"That until the legislature clearly confers power upon the school 
boards of such cities in Kansas, to establish separate schools for the 
education of colored and white children, no such power exists." 

Tinon vs. Board of Education, 26 Kan. 1 ; Knox vs. same 
in 1891. 



The Constitution of Iowa provided for the education of all the 
children of the state within certain ages without distinction of 
color. (Laws of Iowa, 1862, Ch. 192. Sec. 12.) 

An Iowa school board undertook to exclude a Negro from a cer- 
tain public school but on appeal to the courts it was held: "That 
school boards have no power or discretion to compel colored chil- 
dren to attend separate schools." 

Clark vs. School Board. 24 Iowa 266. 
Smith vs. School Board, 40 Iowa 518. 

"All legislation which discriminates against any particular race or 
class of persons is in violation of the Constitution of the United 
States. 

"Taxation for the purpose of education should be provided for by 
general laws, applicable to all classes and races alike, all children of 
the United States being entitled to an equal share of the proceeds 
of the common school fund and of all state taxes for the purposes 
of education." 

Dawson vs. Lee, 83 Ky. 50. 

"A law providing that the funds raised by taxation from property 
belonging to white people shall be used for the education of white 
children, and those raised from taxation of property belonging to 
Negroes shall be used for the education of Negroes is unconsti- 
tutional." 

Markham vs. Manning, 96 N. C. 1. 



12371 



GENERAL INDEX 



Index 



ABOLITION of Slavery After 
Revolution in Connecticut. 
Massachusetts, Rhode Is- 
land, New Hampshire, Ver- 
mont, New York, New Jer- 
sey 13 

Amendment for 92, 106 

In District of Columbia 20,45,90 
In United States 108,116,118,149 
Of Slave Trade After 1808.... 19 

Slave States Favor 17 

ABOLITIONISTS 14,85,87 

Lincoln Not 

75.97,103,106,108,110 

ADAMS, Charles Francis 62 

ADAMS, John Quincy (Note). 13 

Against Slavery 

47, 49, 53, 56, 58, 108 

Garrison Supports 39 

Opposes Resolution 42 

ADMISSION of Missouri... 22, 28 

Arkansas 42, 43, 173 

Colorado 150 

Florida 56 

Georgia 174. 180 

Kansas 80, 81 

Louisiana 177 

Maine 26 

Mississippi 177, 179 

Nebraska 154 

North Carolina 177 

South Carolina 177 

Tennessee 152 

Texas 56, 58, 64, 80, 177 

Virginia 178 

AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE 

(See Slave Trade) 
ALABAMA, Constitution, 

172, 173, 177 

ALBANY ARGUS 86 

AMENDMENTS, to Constitu- 
tion, 92, 115, 135, 137, 139, 140, 

152. 162, 171, 180 
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY 
SOCIETY 14 



AMERICAN COLONIZATION 

SOCIETY 13, 109 

AMNESTY 196,200 

ANDREWS, Governor of Mas- 
sachusetts 100, 114 

ANTHONY, Col. D. R., Forbids 

Slave Hunting 102 

ANTI-SLAVERY, Agitation by 

Quakers 14 

First Society 14 

Advocates Driven from South 43 

Convention 14 

Forces in Congress 26 

Garrison Leads 39 

In New York, Maryland, Dela- 
ware, New Jersey, Connec- 
ticut, Virginia, Rhode Is- 
land, Pennsylvania 14 

In Twenty-sixth Congress — 47 

Literature 15 

Matter Excluded from Mails. 40 
Memorials by Negroes (Note) 15 

Publications 39,40 

Sentiment Grows 53 

APPEAL, Walker's 40 

APPORTIONMENT BILL .... 

135, 136, 140 

ARKANSAS, Territory Organ- 
ized 25, 26 

Admission of 42, 43, 56 

Reconstruction 173, 174 

ARMSTRONG, General, founds 

Hampton Institue 209 

ASHLEY, James M., on Thir- 
teenth Amendment, 116,127,213 
ASHMAN, Representative, Of- 
fers Amendment to Mexi- 
can Bill 56 

AVERY Platform 82 



B 



BAKER, Jehu 138 

"BARN BURNERS" 62 

BELL (of Tennessee) 70,83 

BENEZET, Anthony, Estab- 
lishes School 207 



[241] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



BENTON, Thomas H 23 

BENJAMIN, John F 159 

BERRIEN (of Georgia) 70 

BINGHAM, John A 

90,136,152,163,174,177.182 

BIRNEY, James G., Joins Gar- 
rison 46 

Starts Liberty Partv 61, 64 

BLACK LAWS 

109,128,129,131,147,210 

"BLACK REPUBLICAN"... 85, 104 

BLAIR, F. P 79 

BLAINE, Jas. G, on Fourteenth 

Amendment 135 

Breaks with Conklin 137.191,203 

BLOUT'S FORT 35.36.51 

BORDER RUFFIANS 75 

BOUTWELL, Geo. S 162 

BRIGHT, Jesse D 70 

BROOKS, Preston, Assaults 

Sumner 78 

BROWNLOW, Governor of Ten- 
nessee 138 

BROWN, John, in Kansas .... 75 

Raid of 82, 85 

BROWN, Sen. Gratz ....153,168 

BRUCE, B. K 179 

BUCHANAN, Jas. A., Elected 

President 81 

BUFFALO Convention 63 

BULLOCK, Governor of Geor- 
gia 182 

BUTLER, Benj. F., at Baltimore 

Convention 83 

At New Orleans 101 

Backs Force Bill ....191,192.197 
Reconstruction 180 



CABIN, "Uncle Tom's," pub- 
lished 40,208 

CALHOUN, John C, in Cabi- 
net 33 

Offers Resolution 48 

CAMERON, Secretary of War 103 

CAMPAIGN of 1848 61 

"CARPET-BAGGER" . 152, 171. 172 
CARPENTER, Sen. Matthew.. 

197, 200 

CASS, Sen. Lewis 51 

CHANDLER. Senator 186 

CHANNING, Rev. Dr. W. E... 40 

CHASE, Salmon P 79 

CITIZENS. Negroes not 124 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

.115, 133, 140, 144, 148, 183, 194, 196 



CLARK, Senator 89 

CLAY, Henry, Speaker ..26,27,28 
Fathers Fugitive Slave Bill. 

70. 84 

CLERGYMEN of New Eng- 
land Protest 73 

COLFAX, Schuyler, Nominated 161 
COLORADO, Admission of.... 150 
COLORED Members Expelled 
by Georgia Legislature ...180 

COLORED Soldiers 

102.103,107,120.191,211 

COMPENSATION, for Freed- 

men 112,143 

COMPROMISE, in Constitu- 
tion 18 

Missouri 24.25, 32 

CONFEDERATE Army, Ne- 
groes in 103 

CONFISCATION 107, 157 

CONKLIN, Roscoe ....127,137,202 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMERI- 
CAN Party 83 

CONSTITUTION, Slavery in.. 
14.15.87,128,141,144.148.163, 
177, 183 
CONVENTION, Anti-Slavery... 14 
Of 1860 81, 82 

i P3CP 93 

COOPER,' Jas. "(Pa.) ".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 70 

"COPPER-HEADS" ....62,126,152 
COURT, Supreme of U. S. De- 
cisions (See Appendix) 
CRANDALL, Prudence 209 



DADE, Major, Destruction of 

38, 51 

DAVIS, Jefferson 88 

DAYTON, Wm. L., Nominated 81 

Minister to France 101 

D'AUTREVE, Claims by 33 

DELAWARE, Slavery in 26 

DECISIONS of Supreme Court 

(See Appendix) 
DEMOCRATIC Party 

25,41,62,69.77, 82 

DENT, Marshall 102 

DEPORTATION 89. 107, 109, 110, 112 

DICKINSON, Daniel M 62 

DISTRICT of Columbia 

17,21,42,45,109,115 

DOOLITTLE. Senator 109,130,141 
"DOUGH FACES" 28,40,66 



[242] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



DOUGLAS, Stephen A. ..70,76,78 

Debates Lincoln 95 

DOWNS (of North Carolina). 70 

DRAFT ACT 123 

DRAFT RIOTS 105 

DRAKE, Senator (Missouri).. 

174, 178 

DRED SCOTT 23,82,84,135 

DURKEE, Senator (Wiscon- 
sin) 69 



EDMUNDS, Senator Geo. F. .197 

EDUCATION 109,207 

ELLIOTT, Representative 

(Massachusetts) 112,197 

EMANCIPATION, in New 

England (Note) 13 

By Army Officers 102 

By Lincoln 110,112,115 

Demanded 106 

In New Jersey (Note) 13 

In New York (Note) ....13,20 

Proclamation 97 

"EMANCIPATOR" 40 

EMBREE, Elihu 40,44 

ENGLAND, Second War with. 21 

EVERETT, Edward 83 

EXCLUSION, Law Against 

Hayti 21 

Anti-Slavery Literature 40 

EXILES of Florida 35,36 



FREEDMEN, Re-enslavement 

of 14, 147 

Abandoned 149 

Help for .......118,132 

Suffering and Destitution of. 155 

Trving Times for 147 

FREEDMEN'S BUREAU .... 

118,156,211,212 

FREE NEGROES 22 

As Soldiers 120 

As Voters 169 

FUGITIVE SLAVES 

.... 19, 22, 69, 82, 102, 105, 107, 134 



GAG RULE 49, 56 

GARFIELD, Jas. A 127 

GARRISON, Wm. L. 13,39,63,94 

GATES, Seth M 49 

GEORGIA 14, 15, 35, 47 

Negroes Flee from 102 

Reconstruction 180 

GIDDINGS, Joshua R., Attacks 

Slavery 48,59,66,69,72, 79 

Censured by House 52 

GIST, Governor (S. C) 87 

GOTT, Daniel 62 

GRANT, General 125 

President 161 

Wants San Domingo 185, 192,202 

GREELEY, Horace 79 

Open Letter to Lincoln .110.114 
GRIMES, Senator 106 



FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT 

128,162,163,171,183,190 

FLORIDA, Territory of 34 

Admitted 55 

Ceded to United States 36 

Exiles of 35,36, 49 

Fort Brooke 36 

Indians in 36 

Reconstruction 176 

Slaverv in 68 

FORCE ' BILL 189, 190 

FORT WAGNER 122 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 
129, 140, 147, 148, 162, 180. 183. 
190,206 

FRANCHISE 131,136,139,170 

FREMONT, John C, Nominat- 
ed 60 

Offends Lincoln 81,102 



H 



HALE, Sen. lohn P 58 

HALLECK, General 102.106 

HARPERS FERRY, Raid ..85,89 
HARRISON, Wm. H, Wants 

Slaves in West 51 

HAYES, R. B., President 202 

HAYTI, U. S. Suspends Rela- 
tions with 21 

Freed from France 21,35 

Spurned by England (Note). 21 
HENDERSON. Senator, Pro- 
poses Thirteenth Amend- 
ment 116,140,163 

HOAR, George F 213 

HOMESTEAD ACT ..118,144,183 

HOWARD, Gen. O. 209 

HOWARD UNIVERSITY.. 156, 209 



[243] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



HOWE. Senator 136 

HUNTER, Gen. David 102 

I 

ILLINOIS, Lovejoy Murdered 

in 45, 47 

IMMIGRANT Aid Society .... 75 

Against Slavery 75 

INDIANS, Harbor Negroes 34, 36 

J 

JACKSON, General 33,35 

President 40,44 

JAY, Hon. John 49 

JEEFERSON, Thomas 13, 14 

JENNINGS, Jonathan 52 

JOHNSON. Andrew 

79, 89, 129, 130, 142, 144, 151, 159, 160 

JOHNSON, Capt. Jas. B 156 

JULIAN, Geo.W. 69,79,113,131,213 

r . k 

KANSAS, Troubles in ...64,72,85 

KASSON, John A 148 

KELLEY, Wm. D 131 

KENTUCKY, Representatives 

Vote for Abolition 17 

KIDNAPPERS 59 

KING, Preston 79 

"KNOW-NOTHINGS" 64 

KU KLUX KLAX . . 147, 177, 189, 193 



LAND for Freedmen, 40 Acres 133 

LAY, Benjamin 15 

LECOMPTOX CONSTITU- 
TION 75, 79 

"LIBERATOR" Published .... 45 
LIBERTY PARTY, Started... 46 

Opposed by Garrison 61,64 

LINCOLN, Abraham 79,86 

Approves Halleck and Dent 102 

Career Sketch 95 

Death of 119,126 

Disapproves Freemont 102 

Disapproves Hunter 103 

Discourages Freedom 110 

Doubts Negro Soldiers 103 

Election to Presidency 87 

First Inaugural Address 94 

Not Abolitionist 95 



Replies to Greeley 110 

Special Message 108 

Warns South 110 

Would Pay for Slaves 112 

LINDSAY. Judge Jos 58 

LITERATURE, Anti-Slavery39, 40 
Excluded from Mails 40 

LITTLEFIELD, Gen. M. S., 
Report on Colored Soldiers. 120 

L'OUYERTURE, Toussaint, 

Drives French from Hayti 35 

LOGAN, John A 79 

LOUISIANA, Purchase of .... 68 

Reconstruction 174 

Slavery in 33, 43, 68 

LUNDY, Benj., in Tennessee 39,44 



M 



MADISON, James 79 

MAGXUM, W. P 70 

MAILS, Anti-Slavery Litera- 
ture Excluded 40 

MAINE, Admission 26 

MAROONS, Attack Dade ..36,38 
MASSACHUSETTS, Emancipa- 
tion in (Note) 13 

MASON, Senator (Virginia) 70,85 
MARYLAND, Quakers in .... 17 

Garrison Driven from 44 

Garrison in 39 

Lundy in 39 

Vote Against Slavery ...17, 25 
McCLELLAN, Gen. Geo. B. 79, 102 
MEXICO. War with 29,58,61.148 

MIXER. Miss Myrtilla 208 

MINISTERS to Foreign Courts 

Instructed 101 

MISSOURI, Admission .... 24,27 

Compromise 33, 42, 79 

Raiders from 85 

MISSISSIPPI, Reconstruction 177 
MONROE, President, Questions 

Cabinet 33 

MORTOX, Senator 184.202 

"MUD SILLS" 28,40 



N 



NEBRASKA, Troubles in 64.72,85 
XEGROES, Whites Slaves Be- 
fore 12 

As Authors (Note) 14 

As Soldiers 102 

At Blout's Fort 35 



[244] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



Denied Protection 149 

Deportation of 89,107,110 

Forbidden Within Lines 102 

Fremont Frees 102 

In Confederate Army (Note). 102 

In Revolution 13 

Kill Dade 36 

Laws Against 14 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, Emanci- 
pation in (Note) 13 

NEW JERSEY, Emancipation 

in (Note) 13 

Quakers in 17,20 

NEW MEXICO, Slavery in 90 

NEW YORK, Emancipation in 

(Note) 13,20 

NEW YORK HERALD, Atti- 
tude of 87 

NEW ORLEANS, Battle of.... 33 

General Butler in 101 

NOEL, L., Representative (Mis- 
souri) 113 

NORTH CAROLINA, for Abo- 
lition 25 

Reconstruction 177, 189 

NORTHERN PRESS 66,67 

NORTH WEST TERRITORY. 

21,22, 68 

NYE, Senator 166 



OHIO, River Dividing Line.... 11 

Slaverv Restricted 20 

"OLD MAN ELOQUENT" 60 

OMNIBUS BILL 64,174,180 

ORDINANCE OF 1787 21,51 

OREGON, Territory of 56 

OSTEND MANIFESTO 82 



PACHECO, Petition of 67 

PALFREY, John G 58,65,67 

PAMPHLET, Anti-Slavery by 

Negroes (Note) 15 

PEACE CONVENTION 93 

PENNSYLVANIA, Opposes Sla- 
very (See Appendix) ....17,20 

PETITIONS, Anti-Slavery , 

15,17,42,65,109,115 

PHELPS, S. S 70 

PHILADELPHIA, First Anti- 
Slavery Society 14 

Convention 15 



PHILLIPS, Wendell (Note). .45, 97 

PIERCE, President 77 

PINCKNEY, Rep. (S. C.) 42 

POLK, President, on Mexico .. 58 

POMEROY, Sen. (S. C.) 112 

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.. 73, 82 
POSTMASTER GENERAL Ex- 
cludes Literature 40 

PROTEST of Sen. Wade et al. 
(See Appendix) 



QUAKERS, Anti-Slavery Agi- 
tation 14,15 

Prohibit Slave Holding ...17-39 



RADICALS .... 127, 132, 150, 160, 172 
RANDOLPH, John (Va.) At- 
tacks Slavery 21,22,28 

RECONSTRUCTION 126 

Committee 137,152,172 

Negroes Aid ....172,175,179,200 

Government Ends 195 

RE-ENSLAVEMENT 14,147 

REFUGEES 118,132 

REPUBLICAN PARTY 25,64 

Organized 79 

Position of 

81, 85, 88, 89, 92, 127, 159, 194,199,203 
RESTRICTION of Slavery in 
Missouri, Pennsylvania, New 
York, New Jersey, Ohio and 

Delaware 25, 26,66 

REVELS, Hiram R., in Senate 

179, 184 

REVIEW of African Slave Trade 

Published (Note) 41 

REVOLUTION, Slavery Abol- 
ished After 13 

Negroes Fought in 13,34 

RHETT, Representative (South 

Carolina) 47 

RHODE ISLAND, Emancipa- 
tion in (Note) 13 

ROLLINS, E. H., on Repeal of 

Black Laws 109 

Supports Colored Schools 210 

ROOT, J. M. 65,69 



SALISBURY, Senator 134,139 

SANDERSON, Ralph (Note)... 14 



[245] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



SAN DOMINGO 185,187 

SCHOLARS, Negro Publishers 

(Note) 14 

SCOTT, Dred (Note) 20,23 

(Also Appendix) 
SCOTT, Representative (Mis- 
souri), Talmage Replies to 27 
SECOND WAR with England.. 21 

Seminole 36 

SECESSION Threatened 27 

By Calhoun 86 

In New England 86 

Of South 86 

Right of 92,161 

SEMINOLE WAR 36-49 

SEWARD, Wm. H 79,101 

SEYMORE & BLAIR Nomi- 
nated 161 

SHAW, Colonel 121 

SHELLABARGER, Samuel, In 

troduces Force Bill 192 

SHERMAN, Jno., 87,88, 121, 141, 153 
SHERMAN, Gen. W. T., As- 
signs Land to Freedmen. . .132 

SLADE, Wm 45,47 

SLAVES, Whites, Before Ne- 
groes 13 

As Property 23,33 

Compensation for ...109,111,139 
Declared to Be Property . .. 33 

Emancipated by Quakers 14 

Escaped helped by Indians.. 34 

Fugitive Law 17,69,82 

Not Property 33 

SLAVE-HOLDERS, Agitation 

of 33 

As Social Leaders 66 

SLAVERY, Jefferson Opposes. 14 
Abolished in United States.. 115 

Early Abolition (Note) 14 

Embarrassment to Candidates 51 

Forces in Congress 22,25 

In Constitution 15 

In N. W. Territory 21 

In New Mexico Prohibited.. 90 

In Missouri 26 

In the Territories 33,39 

Issue in New Hampshire 61 

Leading Statesman on 14 

Opposed at Convention. .. .62, 87 
Prohibited in Louisiana Ter- 
ritory 27, 28 

Wanted in West By Harrison 57 
SLAVE HUNTERS invade In- 
dian Reservation 35 



SLAVE STATE for Abolition. 

17, 25 

SLAVE TRADE Stimulated ... 15 

Attacked 27 

Constitution Ignored 25 

Prohibited by Congress (Note) 

15 

Revival of 89,91 

Review of, Published 40 

SLOANE, Representative 20 

SOCIETY, Anti-Slavery 14 

"SOFT HUNKERS" 62 

SOLDIERS, Negroes Employed.102 

In Southern Army 102 

Considered 104, 107, 120 

Discriminated against 120 

Record 120.191,211 

SOUTH CAROLINA ....47,66,87 

Reconstruction 174 

SPAIN Cedes Florida 34,37 

SPEAKERSHIP Contest of 1860. 87 
"SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY" 73 
STEVENS, Thaddeus, Repub- 
lican Leader 90 

Death of 159,200 

On Black Laws 129 

On Confiscation 157 

On Public Lands 133 

Proposes Constitutional Amend- 
ment 115 

Speech on Colored People. ,..130 
STOWE. Harriet Beecher, Pub- 
lishes "Uncle's Tom Cabin" 

41,208 

SUMNER, Charles 60 

Assaulted by Brooks 78 

Death of 194,195,200 

Defeats Annexation of San 

Domingo 186 

Defends Record 167 

Enters Senate 73 

Extension of Suffrage 140 

Fathers Constitutional Amend 

ments 128 

Helps to Organize Republi- 
can Party 79 

Leader of Radicals 128 

Offers Substitute for Fif- 
teenth Amendment 162 

On Status of Seceded States. 128 

Opposes Grant 185 

Opposes Halleck's Order 106 

Stands Against Slavery 89 

Stops Removal of Slaves from 
District of Columbia 109 



[246] 



THE QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS 



Supports Van Buren 64 TYLER, President, Urges Ad- 

Thurman Defends 186 mission of Texas 56 



TALMAGE, Gen. James, on 

Slavery Restriction 26 

Replies to Scott 27 

TANEY, Chief J 84,135 

TAPPAN, Arthur, Aids Garri- 
son 44 

TARIFF Question 51 

TAYLOR, President 64 

TAYLOR, Representative (New 
York) Amends Arkansas 

Bill 25 

On Special Committee 26 

TENNESSEE, Embree in .... 39 

Reconstruction 151, 180 

TENNESSEE, Lundy in 39 

TERRITORY, N. W 21,22 

Organization of 215 

Slavery Prohibited in. .28,89, 154 
TEXAS, Secedes from Mexico. 49 
Admitted to United States... 

52,58,64 

Reconstruction 177 

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT 
Proposed by Stevens, Sum- 
ner and Henderson 

115, 127 (Note), 147, 148, 162 

THOMAS, Senator, Resolution 

on Slavery 28 

THURMAN, Senator, Defends 

Sumner 186 

TILDEN, Sam'l J., Nominated.. 202 
TRUMBULL, Senator Lyman 
on Harper's Ferry Raid .85,89 

Differs with Sumner 166 

Homestead and Civil Rights 

Bill 133,139 

Introduces Confiscation Bill. .106 
TUCK, Amos, Presents Peti- 
tion 58,69 

TUPPER, Dr., Founds Shaw 
University 209 



U 

"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" Pub- 
lished 208 

V 

VALLANDINGHAM, C. L., Cop- 
per-head 62,126 

VAN BUREN, President 46 

As to Second Term 62,65 

First Message 46 

VENABLE, Representative 

(North Carolina) 65 

VERMONT, Emancipation in.. 13 

VIRGINIA Cavaliers 13 

John Randolph of 21 

Lawlessness in 162 

Reconstruction 177 

W 

WADE, Senator Benjamin ...154 

WALKER'S APPEAL 39 

WALKER'S Expedition 69 

WAR (Civil), Beginning of ... 92 
Northern Papers Encourage. 85 

WAR (Revolutionary) 13 

Negroes in 13 

Slavery Abolished After .... 13 
WAR, Second with England 21,22 

With Mexico 29 

With Seminoles 36 

WAR DEMOCRATS 95,159 

WEBSTER, Daniel (Whig) .. 62 

WELLS, Gideon 93 

WHIGS 64,69,76,79,83 

WHITE Slavery Before Negroes 13 
WILMOT, David, Proviso. 58, 69, 79 

WILLIAMS, Senator G. H 162 

WILSON, Sen. Henry. .106, 121, 149 
WISE, of Virginia, Calls Rep- 
resentatives from House... 47 
WOOD, Fernando, "Copper- 
head" 62, 126 



[247] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 836 950 6 



